DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR STATE WATER QUALITY  MANAGEMENT PLANNING
    CHAPTER 1      Introduction

    CHAPTER 2     Continuing Planning Process Development
                       and Approval
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    WASHINGTON, D. C.  20460
                         DECEMBER 1975

-------
                                 CHAPTER 1

                                INTRODUCTION
1.1  Purpose

     The purpose of these guidelines is to assist the States  in  establish-
ing a management program and institutional arrangements to integrate  water
quality and other resource management decisions pursuant to 40 CFR Part 130
regulations on the State Continuing Planning Process.  The central  purpose
of this management program is the development and implementation of State
Water Quality Management Plans, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 131,  to  meet  the
longer range goals of the Federal Hater Pollution Control  Act Amendments
of 1972.  These guidelines present a suggested framework for  developing
water quality management plans.  The management plans should  be  directed
to meet two principal mandates of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972:  (1) determination of effluent limitations needed to
meet applicable water quality standards (Section 303); and (2) development
of areawide management programs to implement abatement measures  for all
pollutant sources (Section 208).

1.2  Applicability

   These guidelines are directed toward State agencies responsible for
establishing a Continuing Planning Process and State or areawide agencies*
responsible for developing State Water Quality Management Plans.  Since
the State may delegate its responsibilities to local, regional,  sub-state,
interstate, and federal agencies to develop and implement part of its
water program, these guidelines also apply to these other governmental
entities.                                       •.         ''

1.3  Timing

   All States have developed a Continuing Planning Process consistent
with Section 303(e) of the Act.  As part of the Process, the  States sub-
mitted Phase I Water Quality Management Plans by July 1, 1975 (or have
been given an additional extension of up to one year by the EPA  Regional
Administrator to submit such plans).  Phase I plans are directed toward
setting out effluent limitations needed by point sources to meet existing
State water quality standards.
*Agencies that have been designated and have received planning grants
 prior to July 1, 1975 should continue to follow the Guidelines for .
 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning, August 1975, and their
...approved project control plans.
                                   1-1

-------
     These guidelines pertain to the second phase of implementation
of the effluent limitatio.ns and water quality standards requirements of
the Act.  In Phase II, States must consider revisibns1'to water quality
standards to achieve the national  water quality goal  specified in Section
101(a)(2) of the Act.  Plans to meet these goals must be developed and
should consider all available means to meet water quality standards
including effluent limitations for point sources and management of non-
point sources.

     While Phase II planning is a  logical  outgrowth of existing State
Water Quality Management Plans, the long-term goals to be achieved
through Phase II plans and the complexity of resolving pollution problems
from both point and nonpoint sources may require a State to amend its
existing management program to ensure proper coordination among the various
components of its water program.  Decisions regarding organizational respon-
sibility for completing Phase II Plans should be contained in the State/EPA
Agreement (§130.11) including the  proposed designation of areawide planning
agencies to undertake certain elements of Phase II plans.  An even greater
need may exist to consider how the State's management program for water
quality can be complemented by and support other resource management programs  in  the
State.  In addition to organizational and program management revisions to the  State's
Continuing Planning Process, the State Water Quality Management Plans themselves  may
require substantial changes to meet the longer term goals of the Act and to  develop
abatement programs for all pollutant sources.

     The timetable of some of the  more important dates in Phase II is as
follows:
     -: November 28, 1975


     - January 27, 1976



     - Aoril 26, 1976
     - April 26, 1976
Promulgation of revised 40 CFR
Parts 130, 131

Identification  of areas
eligible for designation under
Section 208(a)(2)-(4)

Continuing Planning Process
Revisions submitted to Regional
Administrator (by this date
Governors should have indicated
final determination of areas to
be designated under Sec-
tion 208(a)(2)-(4))

Complete documentation of
areawide planning area designa-
tions to be submitted to
Regional Administrator
                                     1-2

-------
    - July 1, 1976               --          Phase I  Water Quality  Manage-
                                              ment Plans due where  extensions
                                              have been -granted

    - Novemoer 1, 1978           --          State WQM Plans due  for final
                                              submission (including portions
                                              of State WQM Plan delegated
                                              to areawide or other  planning
                                              agencies)

1.4  Objectives

    The overall objective of tne Act is to "restore and maintain  the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(Section 101 (a)).  To achieve tiiis objective, "it is  the national  goal
that wherever attainable, an interim goal  of water quality which  provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfisn, and wildlife and
provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1,  1983"
(Section 101(a)U)).  To enable meeting the Act's objectives, "it is the
national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes
be developed and implemented to assure adequate control of sources  of
pollutants in each State" (Section 101(a)(5)).

    Tne objective of the State's Continuing Planning  Process is to
establish a management program and develop implementation plans  (State
Water Quality Management Plans and other plans.prepared pursuant  to the
Act) to meet the 1983 water quality goal,  wherever attainable.

1.5  Output Requirements

    The required outputs of the State Continuing Planning Process are
summarized in 40 CFR S130.10(a)-(c).   Guidance on how to develop  a  Con-
tinuing Planning Process to meet these requirements is presented  in
Chapter 2.

    The required outputs of State Water Quality Management Plans  are
stated in Part 131.11(a)-(p).   An interpretation of specific outputs that
might be needed to meet these requirements is found in Chapter  3.   The
States and other agencies carrying out planning responsibilities  pursuant
to Parts 130 and 131 are encouraged to use,whatever planning procedures
best suit their needs.   The planning  procedures discussed in Chapters 3-14
simply represent some possible approaches  for developing State  Water Quality
Management Plans and should not be construed as restrictive.

1.6  Overview of the Continuing Planning Process and  State Water  Quality
    Management Plan Development

    The following is a summary (with  simplified examples) of how'the
State might develop its Continuing Planning Process and Water Quality
Management Plan:
                                    1-3

-------
A.  Continuing Planning Process

   Developing a Continuing Planning Process entails a series of steps
in which information is gathered on existing water quality .programs
and decisions are made regarding how to adapt existing programs to
the longer term objectives of the Act.  These steps might be conducted
as follows:

   1.   Process Design

        The first step is the determination of the agency to be
   responsible for developing the Continuing Planning Process.
   Once this agency is chosen by the Governor, it should develop an
   overall design of a process to meet the requirements  of 40 CFR
   Part 130.  This involves definition of how the State's existing
   water program will be modified to meet Phase II requirements.
   The initial process design will be further refined as each  .
   component of the process (described below) is developed in
   greater detail.

        Example:  The Governor has designated the State  water quality
   agency to be responsible for the State's Continuing Planning
   Process.  The State water quality agency has begun to array a
   description of the existing water program, its elements, and
   their relationships against a listing of changes needed to meet
   the revised requirements for a Continuing Planning Process.   The
   State agency has separated its process design into the following
   functional headings:  inputs to the process (including existing
   programs related to water quality, public participation, and
   intergovernmental input); development of a State Strategy to
   meet Phase II requirements; development of a State/EPA Agreement
   (including areawide planning area designation and planning delega-
   tions); preparation of water quality management plans; and revision
   of standards.  The State agency has assigned personnel to further
   develop each of these components of the process.

   2.   Define Inputs to the Process

        The next step in developing the Continuing Planning Process
   is to define the relationship among existing water program
   activities and between water programs and otner environmental
   and resource management programs.  At this step, the  mechanisms
   by which local government and the general public will participate
   in formulating and carrying out the State's water program should
   also be defined.

        Example:  The State has first classified its water program
   into the following categories:   (1) program management, (2) stand-
   ards setting,  (3) plan development - analytic phase (this refers
   to water quality analyses and setting of effluent limits to meet
   standards), and  (4) plan implementation mechanisms (these wou-ld
   include  Section 402 permits, detailed facility planning and
   construction grants, and regulatory programs and implementing

-------
agencies required by Section 208).   The interrelation  of these
aspects of the State's water program has been  defined.   The
State Water.Quality Management Plan provides  the  basic  framework
for setting water quality goals and making decisions which are
implemented through the permit program, and provides design
parameters for further facility planning and  construction grants.

     For each of the above water program categories, the State
agency has identified the programs  that should be coordinated
with particular'activities.  For example, major environmental
and resource management programs such as the  air  and solid waste
programs, Coastal Zone Management Program, HUD 701  Program,  and
Federal land management activities  should be  coordinated with
the water quality program at the stage of program design.

     In terms of standards setting, there may be  special relation-
ships with other programs that involve designation pf  land and
water for particular uses, e.g., the Coastal  Zone Management
Program, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Federal  land management
activities, etc.'  Plan.'development  and implementation  should be
coordinated with corresponding phases of other environmental
and resource management programs.

     In order to seek involvement of the public as a whole  in its
water program, the State has developed a public participation
program which consists of seminars  and meetings on the State's
overall management program and more extensive interaction with
the public in each area in which water quality management plans
are developed.

     Finally, the State has developed a Water Quality  Advisory
Board with representation of local  elected officials.   This
Board oversees the State's management program.  Similar local
advisory groups have been set up for each planning area within
the State.

3.  State Strategy

     The State Strategy should indicate the State's general
approach to solving water quality problems and resource needs
to carry out the approach.

     Example:  The State has indicated two general water quality
problem situations:  (1) complex pollution problems in urban
areas involving many pollution parameters and many categories
of sources and  (2) specific problems involving a lesser number
of pollution parameters and readily identifiable categories  of
pollution sources.  The State has indicated that the complex
problems require integrated planning for all  pollution sources.
Because of the important role of local government in resolving
complex pollution problems, the State intends to designate
these areas as areawide planning areas under Section
208(a)(2)-(4) of the Act.  The State will conduct planning and
                              1-5

-------
 implementation activities in other areas of the State.   The
 resource needs for planning in these areas are also indicated.

 4.  Preparation of State/EPA Agreement

     This stage of the process involves determining  specific
 planning areas and tasks, agencies responsible for  the  tasks,
 including designation of areawide planning areas and agencies,
 and a timetable for planning.

    Example:  The State has already designated three  urban areas
 for areawide planning.   However,  it was necessary in the State/
 EPA Agreement to spell  out a more precise division  of responsi-
 bilities for monitoring, wasteload allocation development and
 review by the State, coordination with further facility planning,
 and many other planning relationships.  The State proposes to
 designate two more areas for areawide planning and  has  indicated  in
 the State/EPA Agreement the planning tasks that would be carried
 out by the State and designated agencies in such areas.  The
 State has also indicated the planning tasks to be carried out
 by the State water quality agency with the cooperation  of other
 State and Federal agencies.

 5.  Revision of Standards

     The State should indicate where present stream  use  classifi-
 cations may require revision to protect existing instream water quality
and where it is proposed that currently designated uses  be upgraded
to meet longer term water quality goals.  In each case,  appropriate
criteria should be developed to be included in standards revisions,
and the proposed revisions should be evaluated through the process
of developing State Water Quality Management Plans to implement the
standards.

     Example:  The State has proposed to include toxics  and
 phosphorous  under its standards for waters supporting warm water
 fisheries and to increase the stringency of the standard for total
 dissolved solids in waters classified as cold water fisheries to
 provide greater protection of trout during spawning. In addition,
 the State has chosen a design condition for wet weather flows and
 will initiate a monitoring program to determine whether standards
 are being violated under wet weather flows.  Furthermore, the
 State has proposed that high quality waters in certain  parts of
 the State be maintained at existing water quality levels  and has
 proposed standards reflective of these levels.  To  meet longer
 term water quality objectives, the State has proposed for.certain
 areas of the State an upgrading of designated uses  from waters
 that provide maintenance of certain fisheries to waters that support
 propagation of this fishery, as well as body contact recreation.
                         1-6

-------
    6.   Preparation of State Water Qqality Management  Plans

        Responsibilities for preparing State Water Quality Management
    Plans should be indicated in the State/EPA Agreement.  After
    portions of the State Water Quality Management Plan  are  completed,
    implementing agencies should be designated to  carry  out  the plan.

        Example:  Certain portions of the State Water  Quality Management
    Plan have been completed by existing designated areawide planning
    agencies. , The State has designated implementing agencies pursuant
    to  Section 208(a)(2) to carry out these plan elements.

    7.   Planning Process Review and Revision

        States are required to review their continuing planning process
    annually and make revisions if necessary.

        Example:  The State has reviewed its existing  planning process
    description and revised the process description in accordance with
    the changes needed to meet Phase II requirements.   The State  has
    held public hearings on the revised process description.

B.  State Water Quality Management Plan Development

    This guideline suggests a sequence of planning steps which may be
followed to develop the plan elements required in  Part 131 regulations.
The following is a simplified version of these steps accompanied  by
some examples of how the steps might apply to typical  pollution prob-
lems in urbanized portions of a State:

    1.   Identify problems in meeting 1983 goals of the Act

        The pollution problems should be identified in terms of their
    relative impact on water quality.  Similarly,  existing institu-
    tional  problems impeding solution of water quality problems should
    be  identified.

        Example:  To meet the 1983 goals of water  suitable for fishing
    and swimming may require high levels of abatement  for municipal
    and industrial point sources as well as nonpoint sources. Munici-
    pal and industrial point sources may present the worst problem
    under low flow stream conditions.  It may be necessary to provide
    higher than  national base level treatment for  these  sources in
    order to meet water quality standards.   In the process of
    upgrading treatment for existing municipal sewage  treatment
    plants  and constructing new plants, the location of  discharge
                               1-7

-------
points is an important variable affecting water quality.   Treat-
ment plant collection systems also influence where development
will occur, which affects nonpoint source runoff.   Finally, the
design of treatment systems will need to include options  for
utilizing or disposing of the residual  by-product of the  treat-
ment process.

    Even after the point source problem has been solved,  it is
likely that rainfall-related sources of pollution such as urban
runoff may cause severe stress on aquatic life due to the heavy
metals and toxic substances washed into the stream.

    In terms of institutional problems, the fragmented and small
treatment works authorities in the area would have to join together
to upgrade treatment levels to meet the 1983 goals.  In addition,
a management agency or agencies may need to be designated to
establish a nonpoint source and residual waste management program,
including local adoption of ordinances  to require "best management
practices" for various nonpoint source  pollution generating activi-
ties.

2.  Identify constraints and priorities

    Both technical and management constraints on meeting  1983
water quality goals should be identified.  Priorities for solving
water quality problems should be established.

    Example:  From a technical standpoint, there may be reaches
of streams in the area that cannot meet the 1983 goal. The goal
may not be attainable, if a technological solution, for example,
dredging sludge deposits from a river,  would cause as many long
term water quality problems as allowing the deposits to be
naturally flushed out of the river over time.  The development
of State Water Quality Management Plans should provide information
to help the State determine its policy  on revision of water
quality standards.  A management constraint may be a lack of
financial capacity to deal with a long  standing problem such as
drainage from abandoned mines.  Priorities should focus on prob-
lems that can be most effectively solved within existing  techno-
logical and economic capabilities.  For example, renovating urban
stormwater systems may be a low priority due to the high  capital
costs.  On the other hand, establishing a treatment works program
may be a very high priority.  The State Water Quality Management
Plan should specify a'number of interim outputs such as service
areas and treatment.levels to provide an areawide perspective in
further facilities planning.
                           1-8

-------
3.  Identify possible solutions to problems

    All reasonable regulatory and management control  methods
to reduce pollution to an acceptable level  should be  identified.

    Example:  Based on the State's existing and proposed water
quality standards, a determination should be made of  the levels
of pollutant loading to streams that would not violate water
quality standards.  To meet the pollutant loading constraints for
industrial and municipal  sources, it may be necessary to consider
larger regional treatment plants or pretreatment of industrial
wastes prior to discharge to a municipal facility.  However,  the
technical solution of a large regional  treatment plant must also
be feasible from an institutional standpoint.  This would require
preliminary analysis of management agency(s) and institutional
arrangements for implementing a particular technical  solution.
Similarly, in the case of nonpoint sources, the overall feasibility
of managing a particular problem should be investigated before
the details of possible management practices are developed.  For
example, if improved street sweeping is thought to be an option
for mitigating impact of urban stormwater, the practicality of
changing parking schedules should be assessed from the outset.
The regulatory measures for establishing "best management practices"
for other nonpoint sources should also be identified.  The
authority for regulating certain activities (agricultural practices
or mining) may not exist at the local level, and would therefore
not be feasible unless enabling legislation were passed.

4.  Develop alternative plans to meet statutory requirements

    Alternative technical abatement methods for municipal and
industrial wastes, stormwater, nonpoint sources and residual  waste,
for both new and existing sources should be combined  into areawide
plans.  Comparable alternatives for the implementation of the tech-
nical options through establishing waste management programs  and
regulatory programs should be identified.

    Example:  The technical alternatives for municipal and
industrial wastes might include options for regionalization of
treatment for municipal and industrial  wastes, separate systems,
or upgrading existing municipal systems.  Waste treatment capa-
cities of these alternatives should correspond to the projected
land development 'pattern in the area.  The residual waste disposal
options would vary depending on the choice of treatment systems.
Alternative management programs for construction, operation,  and
maintenance of the treatment works would have to be developed and
include consideration of the financial  arrangements for the local
share of construction, the financing of operations and maintenance,
                           1-9

-------
 .and cost recovery and user charges.   These  assessments  need
 ;only be as  specific  as the degree  of detail  undertaken  in  the
 .State Water Quality  Management  Plan. The,.design -parameters  for
 •facility planning developed fn  the State  water  Quality  Management
 Plan should b.e  followed in detailed  facility planning prior  to
 award of construction grants.

     Technical .alternatives for  managing aonpoint sources might
 include a series  of  alternative designs for attenuating the
 runoff from new urbanized  areas, as  well  as  alternative manage-
 ment practices  for existing nonpoint sources in categories such
:as  agriculture  or~mining.   The  management programs  for  implementing
'the design  criteria  for new stormwater and  drainage systems  would
require proper  enabling legislation, an .agency .capable  of supervis-
 ing the construction of new drainage systems,..and adequate incentives
•such as tax advantages for adopting  the .management"practices.

 5.   Analyze alternative plans

    "The alternatives should-be  evaluated  according  to the criteria
 of  minimizing overall  costs, •maintaining .environmental, social,
 and economic values, and assuring  adequate management authority,  .
 financial capacity,  and implementation feasibility  in meeting water
 quality and carrying out the requirements of Sections 303(e),
rymg
c)(2]
208(b)(2)  and  (c)(2) of the Act.

    .Example:   To meet water quality goals, the  least cost strategy
•for abating municipal sources may  involve a large  regional treatment
plant.   This option would allow establishing a  regional approach to
.sludge  utilization through land application.  Thus, this option
would be environmentally and economically desirable.  However, the
•option  would involve constructing  sewer  interceptors through un-
developed  land, which, unless land use controls were strictly
applied, could induce further development.  "This option would
involve the  greatest  institutional change, since it would require
creating authority for regional financing of treatment.

    For existing~nonpoint sources  such-as urban stormwater,
•street  sweeping-might be less costly  than attempting to treat
stormwater.  However, altering parking  regulations to allow
.better  sanitation would be disruptive to transportation.  The
alternative ..of separating some existing  combined storm and
sanitary sewers  could be accomplished in the .course of upgrading
•treatment  plants, and might be the least cost solution for
combined sewer overflow.

    Adopting design standards for  new drainage  systems would
help  protect future water quality. The-costs of these measures
could be offset through tax breaks.   The feasibility of implement-
 ing these  design standards would depend .on adequate staffing
of the  agencies  responsible for  supervising their  enforcement.
                            1-10

-------
6.  Selection of a Plan

    The selection should be based upon systematic comparison
of the alternatives.

    Example:   Through a process of public involvement in the
planning process, there should he general  familiarity with
options for meeting water quality goals.   Having identified
the least cost plan (where cost includes  economic, social and
environmental considerations), the units  of government involved
in recommending plan approval might also  consider compatibility
of the various alternative plans with other community goals.

7.  Plan Approval

    Plan review and approval will be based on whether the plan
demonstrates that the 1983 water quality  goals specified in
Section 101(a)(2) will be met and that the plan meets the re-
quirements of Part 131 regulations.

    Example:  The plan demonstrates that  the combined measures
for abating point and nonpoint sources will be adequate for
meeting standards.  However, to the extent that some of the cause-
and-effect relationships between nonpoint source problems and
water quality cannot be documented, the approval of the plan
should be contingent on development of plan performance assess-
ment including an ongoing monitoring program.  The management
program meets the requirements of the Act for waste treatment and
regulatory programs.  However, some of the regulatory measures
needed to implement the plan are in the form of legislative
proposals before local governments in the area.  The plan approval
should be based on the condition that the regulatory measures will
become law within'a given time period. The State should monitor
the progress of implementation and recommend or enact alternative
measures if the original regulatory proposals are not adopted
locally.      '    ' '        *                  '

8.  Periodic Updating of the Plan

  •  A specific procedure should be defined for'monitoring plan
effects and developing annual revisions to the plan.

    Example:  The'procedure for plan updating is that instream
monitoring will  be carried out by the management agency(s) to
determine needed plan revision.  The State will monitor progress
of the management program and recommend specific actions needed
to assure meeting water quality standards.
                        1-11

-------
                               CHAPTER  2

            CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS DEVELOPMENT  AND APPROVAL
2.1  Purpose

   The purpose of the State's continuing planning process is  to set up a
management program and procedures  to carry out water quality  planning  and
implementation requirements of the Act.   These requirements  include standards
setting and revision (5303(c)), preparation of State Water Quality Management
Plans (S303(e) and 8208), areawide planning and implementation  (§208), annual
assessment and projection of water quality (S305(b)), clean  lakes (§314(a)),
Federal/State estimate of publicly owned treatment works needs  (S516(b)j, and
data for the Federal report on v/ater quality (S104(a)(5)).

   The continuing planning process is the State's management  approach  for
organizing the activities that are undertaken to complete these requirements,
as well as coordinating these activities with other programs  undertaken in
the State.  In order to organize and coordinate water quality planning and
implementation activities, procedures are needed to carry out the following
functions:

      identify water quality problems
   .  establish the goals and standards  for water quality protection
   .  delineate organizational and program responsibilities  and inter-
      relationships for planning and implementing solutions  to problems
   .  establish the relationship between water quality management and  other
      State programs and policies
   .  establish priorities, and resource commitments for water quality
        program activities

   Amended regulations on the continuing planning process (40 CFR Part 130)
require the State to describe the elements to be included in  the process by
which-the State carries out the previously discussed functions.  However, the
structure of these required elements, their timing and interrelations, are to
be determined at the discretion of the State. The purpose of the process
is to organize the State's water quality management activities.  In
general, the simpler the process by which decisions are made, the more
efficient the process will be.  Thus the process should have the fewest
possible number of steps and relationships to carry out the  basic functions
described above.
                                  2-1

-------
2.2  Major Steps in Developing the Process  Description

     Part 130.10(a)-(c)  specifies the general  output requirements  for a
continuing planning process.   The State's approach  to meet each  of these
general retirements should be described in its  continuing planning process
submission.  In order to provide a framework for discussion of the con-
tinuing planninq process, these required elements can be arranged  into the
following major steps leading to the development of the overall  process
description:

        Process Design                              •                •
     •.  Provision for Inputs to the Process (coordination with other plan-
        ning activities, public participation, intergovernmental  input)
     .  Preparation of the Annual State Strategy
     .  Preparation of the State/EPA Agreement
     .  Preparation of the State Water Quality Management Plan
     .  Revision of Water Quality Standards               •     -   '
     .  Qutputs - Description of Above Process Elements
     .  Process Adoption and Approval

     These major steps of the process are depicted  on the following chart
(Table 2.1) roughly in chronological order  and proceed  from the  general  to
the specific.  The chart does not depict all the interactions  between the
steps, nor does it depict the timing cycle  of the various stages of the
process.  These features of the process should be defined by the States  in
their process submission.  (A format for describing each of the  process
elements is provided in  Table 2.3).

2.3  Detailed GUI' dance on Required Process  Elements

     This detailed guidance will discuss each requirement of Part 130
according to the framework depicted in Table 2.1.  In cases in which the
elements listed in Table 2.1  have further subheadings in Part  130, each
of the subheadings will  also be referenced  and discussed in the  guidance.

     A.  Process Design

         Process design  should be the first stage of the continuing plan-
     ning process.  At this stage, an agency is  chosen  to be responsible
     for defining the elements of the process, including inputs, their
     relationships, and  timing.  In developing the process, procedures
     for revision of the process and elements of the process should also
     be specified.  Process development includes definition of the
     following:
                                     2-2

-------
                Table 2.1   State Continuing Planning Process
                           Major Steps  and Process Elements"
C.


D.
 Process Design                                ]
 1"!  State Agency Responsible for Coordinating i
     Continuing Planning Process and State     j
     WQM Plans        ."                       i
 2.  Statement of Planning Authority
 3.  Preliminary Description of Process        ;
     Requirements
 4.  Review, and Revision Procedures    .      . J

 Process Inputs
 TPublic.Participation
 2.  Intergovernmental Cooperation and
     Coordination
 3.  Program Coordination
     a.  Water Program Relationships
     b.  Coordination with other Local, State,
         and Fe.deral_J>r_o.grams

 Preparation of Annual State
 Strategy         	                       __
H
Preparation of Annual
State Program (SI06)
 State/EPA Agreement  (including Delineation
 of Planning Areas and Planning Responsibil-
 ities)
 1.  Segment Classification; Listing of Basins
     or Approved Planning Areas and Segments
 2.  Designation of Areawide Planning Areas
     and Agencies
 3.  Delegation of Planning Responsibilities
_A	Annual Preparation/Revision of .ActrjeejDgni	

 Review/Revision of Water Quality
 Standards and Definition of Antidegradation
 Policy
     	.	_
     Preparation of $tate~Water Quality
     Management Plans
     TRequirements for State WQM Plan
         Preparation
     2.  Review and Certification of Plans
         for  Areawide Planning Areas
     3.  Designation of Management Agencies
         to Implement Plans
     "~  '"  '        "•"•"•".l"
     Outputs:  DescripTion of State
     Continuing Planning Process
                        ^
     Planning Process Adoption and Approval
     Procedures"
     V.Planning Process Adoption
     2.  Submission
     3.  Review and Approval

-------
    State Planning Agency Responsible for Coordinating the
    Continuing Planning Process and State WQM Plans
    (S130.10(c)(6)).
    A single agency is to be designated by the Governor to be
responsible for developing and submitting the continuing planning
process, receiving input to the process, and making appropriate
arrangements with other agencies which will  have planning responsi-
bility for developing portions of the State WQM Plan.

    .   Description of Agency

     .  In describing the lead State agency responsible for the
    continuing planning process and the State WQM Plan,
    information such as the name of agency, structure,
    functions, and budget should be presented.

2.  Statement of Planning Authority;' Statement that Implementation
    Authority Exists or Will Be Sought (S130.10(c)(11 ))          "

    The planning authority of the agency chosen to be  responsible
for the continuing planning process should be clearly  established
in State statute.  This agency does not have to possess implementing
authority, but will have to identify  management agencies that do
have such authority to carry out appropriate portions  of a State
WQM Plan.  At the time that a State agency is designated to
carry out the continuing planning process, an investigation
should be initiated of what general authority is needed on the
part of the State or other levels of government to implement
a State WOM Plan.  Where enabling legislation is needed to
establish the authority at the State or substate level to establish
water pollution management and regulatory programs, the continuing
planning process submission should specify how such implementing
authority will be obtained.

    .   Description of Planning Authority and Needed Implementation
       Authority"             '

       The continuing planning process submission should describe
    the following aspects of needed authority for planning and
    implementing State WQM Plans:
                          2-4

-------
       -  existing authority  for  water  quality  planning
       -  water pollution  problems  for  which  adequate  authority  at
          State/local  level exists  to implement solutions-
       -  water pollution  problems  for  which  existing  State/local
          authority to resolve problems is  unclear or  insufficient
       -  legislation  to be sought  at the State/local  level  to provide
          adequate authority  to resolve problems

       As specific elements of State WQM Plans  are developed,
    a more specific delineation of  existing and needed
    authority will be  possible.  This information  should be
    included in the designation of  management agencies (S130.15)
    upon completion of the State  WOM Plan.

3.  Preliminary Description of Process  Requirements (8130.10(a)-(c))

    At this stage in the process, the overall structure  of the
elements of the process, their input, relationships and  timing and
revision procedures, should  be determined.   When all  the elements
of the process have been completed, a description  of the process
can be prepared following  the format suggested  in  Chapter 2.3.G.

4.  Review and Revision of Process  (S130.43)

    The design of the  continuing planning'process  should include
specification of procedures  for review  and  revision of the process.
The process submission should include procedures for revising the
following major process elements by incorporating  results of the
State WOM Plan:

    -  Process Design
    -  State Strategy
    -  State/EPA Agreement

    It is not necessary to annually revise the  entire continuing
planning process design in order to incorporate new substantive
information such as a  revised State Strategy.  It is only necessary
to incorporate the revised substantive  material into the structure
set up for continuing  olanning.
                           2-5

-------
B.  Process Inputs

    The next step in developing a management program for relating  water
quality and other resource management programs  is  to define  the  mechanisms
by which the general public and local elected officials  will  participate
in the management program.  Another initial  step  in  the  management program
is to define existing water program relationships, and define other pro-
grams that have an impact on water duality.   After describing the  existing
programs affecting water quality, and existing  forms of  public participa-
tion and intergovernmental participation,  modifications  to these program
and institutional arrangements should be proposed  as part of the State's
revised continuing planning process.

    1.  Public Participation

        .   Requirements of the Act (S130.10(a)(1))

           Appropriate'means for public participation should be  provided
        at the major stages of the continuing planning process.  For
        example, the EPA/State Agreement on  level  of detail  and  timing
        of the State WQM Plan is an important element of the continuing
        planning process from the standpoint of the  public,  since  it
        defines the strategy and work plan of tasks  that the State will
        accomplish in implementing Sections  303 and  208  and  other  sections
        of the Act.  Contact should be established as soon as possible
        with interested members of the public for  the purpose of formulat-
        ing a program of public participation to  be  carried  out  in the
        State WQM planning process.  Appropriate  forms of public partici-
        pation might also be used in formulating  the design  of the con-
        tinuing planning process as a whole. The  Act's  requirements
        concerning public participation are  discussed in detail  in Chap-
        ter 4, in which guidance is also presented on how to structure a
        program of public participation to meet these requirements.

        •   Institutional Alternatives in Setting  Up  Public Participation
           Programs

           Since the State is responsible for the  continuing planning
        process and the State WQM Plan, it is also responsible for carry-
        ing out requirements for public participation.   However, since it
        is possible that certain planning activities will be delegated by
        the State water pollution control  agency  to  sub-state levels of
        government, designated areawide planning  agencies, another State
        agency or to Federal agencies, it is logical that public participa-
        tion in planning should also be made the  responsibility  of the
        agencies delegated the planning function.  A problem might arise,
        however, if accountability to the public  for various elements of
        planning were divided among many agencies  and units  of government.
        It is thus necessary for one agency  in  each  planning area—either
                               2-6

-------
    the State agency  or a  designated areawide planning agency—to be
    ultimately responsible to  the  public for all public participation
    activities.   In determining  the State/EPA Agreement, the State
    agency should design a public  participation  program as described
    above, and specify which aqencies would be responsible to carry
    out given participation activities within the  larger program.

       In order to make the channels of communication with the public
    very clear,  the State  should designate one person in the State
    agency to be responsible for the public participation program with
    in the State.

2.  Intergovernmental  Cooperation  and Coordination (S130.10(a) (2)) ,
    .   Adequate Input from Local  and  Regional  Units  of  Government
       (8130. 16(a))

       In order to manage water quality  planning  and implementation
    activities for the State,  the agency responsible for  the  continu-
    ing planning process  should seek  the advice of affected local  and
    regional  governments.  This consultation  is especially important
    in developing the State Strategy, State/EPA Agreement, and  carrying
    out the State WQM planning responsibilities.  This  consultation  is
    also essential in making decisions concerning designation of area-
    wide agencies to undertake the 208 planning responsibilities with-
    in the overall State  WQM Plan.  Finally,  consultation is  needed  to
    provide coordination  between areas designated as 208  planning
    agencies, other agencies to which planning activities of  the State
    WOM Plan have been delegated, and the State agency  responsible for
    the continuing planning process.   The State should  develop  a formal
    consultation mechanism such as a  State Water  Quality  Policy Advisory
    Board composed of local, regional, affected Federal agencies and
    adjacent States if appropriate.  Such a State level advisory commit-
    tee is merely recommended.

    .   Institutional Arrangements (S130.16(b))

       In addition to providing means for consultation  between  various
    levels of government, and in order to provide policy  direction for
    the continuing planning process,  the State should encourage coordi-
    nation between various levels of government in water  quality plan-
    ning and implementation activities.   The State should rely  wherever
    possible on existing  local, regional, Federal, and interstate  units
    of government for carrying out the State WQM  Plan.  Further guidance
    on selection of these agencies and the importance of  intergovern-
    mental cooperation in plan implementation is  provided in  Ch. 9.
                          2-7

-------
            .   Policy Advisory  Conmittee  (S130.16(c))

               The purpose  of an  advisory group  is  to  critique" and aid plan-
            ners  in determining the  best  means to deal with water quality prob-
            lems.   The particular procedures  for setting  up an advisory group
            and making use  of its views are  left to the discretion of the State
            agency responsible  for the continuing planning process.  The State
            s'hould exercise discretion and imagination in setting up advisory
            committee structures  and procedures  that best contribute to develop-
            ing implementable water  quality  plans.

               In  order to  clearly delineate  responsibilities for receiving
            input  from advjsory committees,  the  lead State agency responsible
            for the State WOM Plan should develop a list  of advisory groups
            (including proposed membership)  at the  time it establishes or
            revises the State/EPA Agreement  and  delegates planning responsi-
            bilities.

               A  oolic.y advisory committee,  including  majority  representation of
            locally elected officials*, affected Federal  agencies and other
            interested organizations, is  to  be created.   While  the regulations
            only  require one advisory group,  it  is  strongly recommended that at
            least  one advisory  group be established for each planning area.  Rep-
            resentatives from Federal land managing agencies should be included
            on such committees  where Federal  lands  constitute a  significant
            part  of the planning area.  The  advisory committee  should meet, with
            the Agency responsible for the State WOM Plan in order to discuss and
            make  recommendations on  each  of  the  following overall steps of planning:
            review of the EPA/State  Agreement, establishment of  objectives and
            analysis and problems, analysis  of abatement  measures and controls,
            consideration of alternatives, and plan selection.

               Each advisory group should make any  recommendations it feels appro-
            priate to the planning agency responsible  for the State WQM Plan in
            its area.  The  planning  agency director should inform the advisory
            group  of his actions with the advisory  group  recommendations.

            •   Policy Advisory  Committee  in  Designated Areawide  Planning Areas
                             "~"                                          "
               In compliance with Section 304(1)  of P.L.  92-500,  the  Admin-
            istrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has entered  into
            an agreement with the Secretaries of  the Departments  of Agri-
            culture, Army, and Interior.   Notice  of Final  Agreements -was
            published in the Federal  Register, Vol. 38,  No/ 225,
            November 23, 1973.
* Except where the Regional  Administrator at the request of the State
  agrees to a lesser percentage of representation.
                                  2-8

-------
       As  a  result of  this agreement, the planning agency must create
    an  advisory  committee, with  representatives of the Departments' of
    Aqriculture,  Interior, and Army  invited to participate.  Each
    Department may or  may not participate as  it deems appropriate.
    This  requirement provides for coordination of the programs auth-
    orized under other Federal laws  with water quality planning.

       Provisions should also be made for inclusion of representatives
    of  the general public on an  Areawide Planning Advisory Committee.
    The membership may be further expanded as considered appropriate
    by  EPA and the State.  A special effort should be made to include
     representatives of agencies responsible  for other environmental
     programs being conducted in the planning area.

     •   Interstate and International Cooperation (§130.16(e)J

        The advice of  affected adjacent States and Nations is necessary
     in conducting the continuing planning process.  Consultation
     between the State agency responsible for the continuing planning
     process and other affected  States could  take place through exist-
     ing  organizations such as interstate basin commissions.  Inter-
     national consultation should be undertaken through the U.S.
     Department  of State.  Where State WQM Plans are developed for
     interstate  or international waters, an exchange of draft plans
     and comments on such drafts should be arranged between the appro-
     priate parties.

3.  Program Coordination  (S130.1Q(a)(3))

     a.  Hater  Program Relationships

         The State's water program  is composed of a number of acti-
     vities all  of which  should  be  coordinated to produce effective
     water quality management decisions.  The following program
     relationships should be defined in the continuing planning
     process:

         (1) Relationship to Monitoring and  Surveillance Program

              .   State Monitoring Program  (§130.30(a))

                 The minimum requirements  for a State monitoring
              strategy and program  are  described  in 40 CFR Subpart B,
             Appendix A.  These regulations  should be consulted  in
             preparing the continuing  planning process description
              so that  the State's monitoring  strategy and program
                           2-9

-------
may be coordinated with other program elements such as
the preparation of State WQM Plans, the revision of
water quality standards, and implementation of an anti-
degradation policy.

.  Stream Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan Preparation.
   In general, monitoring information is needed for the
following elements of a State WQM Plan:
     water quality assessment  --
     and segment classifica-
     tion (8131.ll(b)) includ-
     ing nonpoint source
     assessment (S131 .ll('d))
     inventories and projec-
     tions (§131.11 (c).)
     water quality standards
     (§131.11 (e))'
This element of the
plan should be initially
based on existing data.
Monitoring should, how-
ever, be undertaken to
clarify gaps in existing
data, especially for wet
weather flow conditions,
and parameters that might
be included in revised
water quality standards.

Information on waste
discharge from municipal
and industrial sources
is to be based on NPDES
data and compliance
monitoring.

Monitoring programs
should be established
to determine exist-
ing water quality where
data is insufficient
to determine the levels
of water quality to
be maintained through
the State's antidegra-
dation policy.  Infor-
mation on historic
water quality is also
needed to help determine
natural background
levels of pollution.
             2-10

-------
   - total  maximum daily    --   Additional  monitoring
     loads  (S13T.ll(f))          information may  be
                                needed  to determine
                                whether a segment  is
                                in fact water quality
                                limited.  Next,  data on
                                the rate of pollutant
                                loading of significant
                                point source dischargers
                                and estimates of nonpoint
                                source  waste load  rates
                                to the  segment may  be
                                needed  to determine the
                                total maximum daily load
                               .and relative contribution
                                of point and nonpoint
                                sources to a segment under
                                both dry weather and wet
                                weather flow conditions.
                                Sufficient data  is  needed
                                to enable reliable  use of
                                models.  The models would
                                then be used to  establish
                                point source waste  load
                                allocations.

   The State should develop and describe its method for
meeting each of the above needs.

.  Proundwater Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan
   Preparation (S130.30(c))       "

   The State agency or other agencies delegated  planning
responsibilities should define  those areas where ground-
water problems exist or may exist in the future.  The
following criteria should be considered in determining
areas where groundwater problems may exist:
      previous detection of concentration of pollutants
      in groundwater above the U.S.  Public Health Service
      or appropriate State recommended standards for
      drinking water.

      presence of one or more of the following problems
      or activities (where these activities have caused
      significant problems in the past under similar
      conditions):  waste disposal  areas including land
      fills, land disposal of sewage or sludge, waste
      lagoons, deep well injection  activities, subsurface
              2-11

-------
          excavation, Reaching to 'groundwater from sur-
          face  irrigation, pumping of groundwater in excess
          of natural  recharge, leakage from underground
          transmission lines or septic tanks or concentrated
          animal feeding operations, anticipated new activi-
          ties  or problems such as one or more of those
          discussed above.  Prior to a new activity which is
          suspected to cause an increase in groundwater pol-
          lutant concentration, the State should conduct a
          background  survey to determine existing ground-
          water quality prior to initiation of new poten-
          tially polluting activities.  The State should
          also  determine whether authority exists, and
          attempt to  gain authority, to require persons
          conducting  such activities to conduct background
          surveys of  groundwater quality.

       The State should develop appropriate criteria for
     determining where it will undertake groundwater monitoring
     and  describe the  methods to be used to meet groundwater
     monitoring  needs  to support State WQM Plan development.

(2)   Municipal  Facilities  (S13Q.34(b)),  (§130.31)

     .   Relationship between State WQM Planning and Section 201
        Facility Planning  (S130.34(b))

        Pursuant to Part 131.11(h), the State WQM Plan is to
     include certain elements of planning for municipal
     collection  and treatment systems.  Guidance on this ele-
     ment of the State WQM Plan is presented in Chapter 3.5
     and  Chapter 8.  The following outputs should result from
     the  municipal facilities element of the State WQM Plans.

        - delineation of  service areas
        r population  to be  served
        - treatment levels  and treatment types  (based on
          wasteload allocation where needed) to meet standards
        - preliminary specification of  infiltration/inflow
          problems and possible solutions; preliminary speci-
          fication of sludge disposal or utilization options
        - preliminary cost  estimates  for collection, treat-
          ment, infiltration-inflow correction and sludge
          utilization or  disposal
        - proposed program  for financing above measures
                2-12

-------
        These  outputs are  to utilize approved 201 and 208
     plans where  available.  Where these outputs have not
     been developed  through 201 or 208 planning, they are
     to  be developed as  part of the State WOM Plan.

     .   Consistency  of Approved State WQM Plan Outputs with
        Facilities Program (S130.31(a),  (b))

        After  the State  has approved 'the municipal facility
     element pursuant to S131.11(h), further Step 1, 2,
     and 3 facilities grants are  to be consistent with the
     approved  facility outputs.   Further facility planning
     and construction grants may  only be made to the manage-
     ment agency(s)  designated pursuant  to S131.11(o) to imple-
     ment the  facility portion of the State WQM Plan.  The
     Regional  Administrator is given the responsibility for
     making  the consistency determination.

     .   Incomplete Municipal Assessment—Relationship with
        Facilities Program (§130.31(3),  (b))

        Where  the municipal facility outputs reguired under
     Part 131.11(h)  are  not complete and approved, the
     Regional  Administrator may elect to delay approving a
     facilities planning or construction grant until an
     adequate  assessment of the needs and priorities of the
     area has  been developed.

     •   Timing of Facilities Assessment  (S130.31(d))

        Because the  facilities outputs required in SI31.11(h)
     are critical for maintaining an integrated program for
     facilities planning and construction, these outputs
     should  be timed in  accordance with  construction priori-
     ties in  the  State.  The EPA/State Agreement should be
     closely  coordinated with  the State's facilities program.

(3)  State Participation in NPDES Program (S130.32(a). (b).  (c))

     The State's  participation in the NPDES program  is con-
tingent  upon  having  an approved continuing planning  process.
In addition  to process approval,  the various activities of
the continuing planning  process must be  carried out  accord-
ing to  statutory  time schedules.  Once the plan or portions
                  2-13

-------
of the State WQM Plan are approved,  point source permits
be consistent with these plans.   See Chapter 3.7 for the pro-
cedure for State WQM Plan adoption.

     .  Timing of State WQM Plan Completion and Permits

        The completion of the State  WQM Plan is needed in
     water quality limited segments  to provide wasteload
     allocations for dischargers requiring permits.   Every
    .effort should be made to complete water quality analyses
     and wasteload allocations for those areas of the State
     where it is expected that higher than base level con-
     trols will be needed to meet water quality standards.
     Schedules for completing these  analyses should  be phased
     according to the timing of  NPDES permit renewal as  well
     as construction grants.  High priority should also  be
     placed on completing water  quality analyses in  areas
     where major new industrial  location is expected. These
     timing considerations should be carefully considered
     in developing the State/EPA Agreement.

(4)  Designated 203 Areawide Haste Treatment Management
     Planning Program Relationship (S130.33(a))

     The State is responsible for developing the total
State WQM Plan.  The principal components of the plan are:

     .  Water Quality Analysis Program

        -  Water Quality Assessments (including nonpoint
           source assessment) and Segment Classifications
        -  Inventories and Projection of Dischargers
        -  Revision of Standards
        •*•  Total Maximum Daily Loads
        -  Wasteload Allocations
        -  Schedules of Compliance of Dischargers

        (Note:  These requirements stem from Sections 303,
        305(b), and 314 of the Act.)
                  2-14

-------
                  .   Vlater Quality  Implementation Program

                     -  Municipal and  Industrial Treatment Works Program*
                     -  Urban  Stormwater Management Program
                     -  Residual Haste Management Program
                     -  Nonpoint Source Management Program
                     -  Regulatory  Program
                     -  Management  Agency(s) and Institutional Arrangements
                       to Supervise and Finance Plan  Implementation

                     (Note:  These  latter requirements  stem from Section 208
                     of the  Act.)

                  The first  set of  elements provides technical direction for
             the State  WQM Plan in  the form of water quality goals  and evalua-
             tion of permissible levels of pollutant loading in receiving
             waters, while the second  set of elements  involves a determina-
             tion of particular abatement measures, regulatory controls
             and financial and management arrangements  to meet the  water
             quality goals.  These  two sets of plan elements are logically
             interrelated.

                  The State  may designate areawide planning agencies  to
             carry out  the latter elements and provide  much of the  analysis
             needed by  the State to finalize the former elements.   In areas
             which are  not designated  as areawide planning areas, the entire
             State WQM  Plan  for that area is to be completed by the State.
             Nevertheless, the State may delegate (if  these agencies  agree)
             portions of  the planning  to sub-state or  Federal agencies.
             In the State/EPA  Agreement for each area,  the State must
             identify the agency responsible for each  of these planning
             elements.

                  .  Coordination of Areawide Planning  and State WQM
                     Development (S130.10(c)(8); S130.33(b). (c)J~

                     Since the designated areawide planning agencies  will
                  play  a  key role in completing the State WQM Plan, they
                  should  be  consulted  by the State agency responsible for
                  the continuing planning process in the formulation  of
                  the process  and especially in the State Strategy  and
                  EPA/State  Agreement.  The EPA/State  Agreement is  the
This refers to the requirements  of SI31.11(h),  (i).   The  relationship
between facility planning outputs  developed in  the State  WQM Plan  and
completion of the Step 1  facility  planning  requirements  is  discussed in
Chapter 3.5 and Chanter 8.
                                  2-15

-------
         basis for establishing the precise division of
         responsibilities for the various  elements  of the
         State WQM Plan.   Since the water  quality analysis
         elements of the  State WOM Plan  are critical  to
         completing designated areawide  plans,  the  EPA/State
         Agreement should specify how the  State will  ensure
         completion of these elements in phase  with the needs
         of designated areawide agencies and should indicate
         the milestones that the State will  use to  monitor  the
         progress of planning conducted  by areawide planning
         agencies.  The State/EPA Agreement should  also specify
         how areawide planning will be coordinated  for interstate
         waters.

            Due to time and resource constraints, the State may
         delegate some of the analytic elements of  the State WQM
         Plan (inventories and projections, maximum daily loads,
         wasteload allocations, schedules  of compliance) to
         designated agencies for completion, subject to State
         review.  Whatever division of responsibilities is
         established between the State and designated areawide
         planning agencies, the plan elements developed by  area-
         wide agencies should be reviewed  for consistency with
         the State WOM Plan and incorporated into the State WQM
         Plan after review and certification as specified in
         S131.20(f).  Guidance on determination of  consistency
         of designated areawide plans with the State WQM Plan  is
         found in Chapter 3.7.  In the case of nonpoint source
         planning, the State has the option under Section 208(b)(4)
         of pre-empting the nonpoint source planning and implementa-
         tion in designated areas.  In order to present the mini-
         mum of uncertainty to the designated area  planning process,
         the State should establish its  intentions  regarding non-
         point source planning in the State/EPA Agreement.

b. - Coordination with Other Local, State,  and Federal Planning
    Programs (SI30.34)

    Water quality management is affected by policies concerning
land use, regional development, and many planning activities
carried out in a State.  Information concerning these policies
and plans is needed as an input to the State continuing planning
process and State WQM Plan.  The effect  of these policies and
olans on attaining water quality objectives should  be evaluated.
In addition, it is necessary to consider the impact that the
water quality management plan may have on  other plans and policies
of the State.  The following guidance suggests some of the  program
relationships that should be defined in  the State's continuing
                        2-lfi

-------
olanm'ng process submission.   (Guidance>on  techniques  for
coordinating water quality and other planning activities  is
further discussed in Chapter 12.)

  •  (1)  Relationship with EPA Solid Waste  Programs

         Section 208(b)(2)(C) calls for regulatory programs  over
    all dischargers, as well  as processes to control  disposition
    of residual waste and disposal  of pollutants on land  or  in
    subsurface excavations,  the specific coverage of these
    elements of State WOM Plans is  discussed further in Chapter 3.
.    Thus solid waste and sludge disposal  regulation for water
    quality protection is needed in a State WQM Plan.   The Solid
    Waste Disposal Act as amended authorizes the preparation of
    State solid waste management plans.  These plans provide for
    locational decisions and management of land disposal  of  solid
    wastes.  In developing programs for dealing with water pollu-
    tion from solid waste and residual disposal, State plans for
    solid waste management should be examined for recommended
    organizational and technicological solutions pertaining  to the
    affected area.  State solid waste management officials and
    local agencies with primary responsibility for regulating
    and implementing solid waste management controls have exper-
    tise in this area and should be consulted when developing a
    management program.  The effects of the management program
    should be considered and appropriate measures taken in coop-
    eration with local agencies to  ensure compatibility between
    the water quality management provisions and solid waste
    management within the area.

    (2)  Relationship with EPA Air Quality Programs

         .  State Implementation Plan

            All States are required under the Clean Air Act, to
         develop and implement State Implementation Plans (SIP's)
         which will meet and maintain the National Ambient Air
         Quality Standards (NAAQS).  Measures and procedures that
         would be included in the SIP are:

            -  Stationary Source Review
            -  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) '
            -  Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
            -  Transportation Controls
            -  Air Quality Maintenance Planning
                      2-17

-------
      Many of the control  strategies  developed  under  the  SIP will
    affect land use and  development decisions.   For example, trans-
    portation controls  involving  mass transit  require certain  popula-
    tion densities to be effective.  The State  should make  sure  that
    population projections and  control  strategies  developed under  the
    SIP are consistent  with those for the State WQM Plan.   To  assure
    consistency, the State should encourage  frequent  communication
    and exchange of information between the  agencies  responsible for
    the two plans, provide for  integration of  data requirements  and
    plan elements when  practicable, and resolve conflicts  in policy
    which may develop between the two plans.

    .  Air Oua-lity Maintenance Planning

      Air Quality Maintenance Planning (AQMP)  is a part of  the SIP
    that is required for areas  where  it has1been determined that
    the NAAQS will be exceeded  within the subsequent  10-year period.
    The State must submit a plan  containing  stricter  control measures
    that will ensure the maintenance  of the  standards.
    The plan is updated at least  every 5 years. In many  areas,
    AQM areas overlap or are essentially the same  as  designated  208
    areas, in which case the planning for the AQM  area  should  be closely
    coordinated with the areawide 208 planning. If the planning
    boundaries for the  State WQM  Plan include  planning  area(s) with
    boundaries similar  to that  of an  AOM area,  planning within the
   planning area(s) should be closely coordinated  with  the  planning for
   the AQMP.  Representatives of  the  AQM planning  agency  should  be on
    advisory groups, and there  should be periodic  reporting and  exchange
    of information between the  agencies designated to do  the State WQM
   Plan within a planning area(s) and the planning agencies responsible
   for the AQMP.

(3) Relationship with Programs  under  the .Safe  Drinking  Water Act

    A number of important relationships exist  between programs under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Preparation  of"State  WM
Plans.  While exact program relationships are  still being defined  by
EPA, the States should  describe existing areas  of  overlap  between
their water supply programs and State WQM Plan. The  States should
seek the advice of EPA  Regional Offices concerning future  relation-
ships  with programs authorized  under  the Safe  Drinking  Water Act.

    The following are some of the major program relationships
between water supply and water  quality planning that  should be
defined:
                           2-18

-------
Water quality standards and
 drinking water standards
Siting of public water supply
 systems
Protection of aquifer recharge-
 areas
                                    The State should define in its water.
                                     quality standards revision process
                                     pursuant to 8130.17, .how water quality
                                     standards policy will be coordinated
                                     with existing and proposed State law
                                     regarding drinking water or water
                                     intake standards.

                                    The State should define how regula-
                                     tory programs over location of waste
                                     discharging facilities pursuant to
                                     Section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act will
                                     be coordinated with existing or pro-
                                     posed State law regarding location
                                     of public water supply facilities.

                                    The State should define how point and
                                     nonpoint source regulatory programs
                                     to be undertaken pursuant to Section
                                     208(b)(2)(C) of the Act will be coor-
                                     dinated with existing or proposed
                                     State law protecting sole source
                                     aquifers or aquifer recharqe areas.

                                    The State should indicate how regulatory
                                     programs for deep well injection or
                                     subsurface disposal of pollutants re-
                                     quired pursuant to Sections 208(b)(2)(C)
                                     and 208(b)(2)(K) of the Act will be
                                     coordinated with other existing or pro-
                                     posed State law concerning protection
                                     of water supply.

(4)  Relationship  with  Level B Studies

    .   Program Coordination

       Section 209  of  the  FWPCAA authorizes the preparation of Level B
    plans  for all basins in the United States.  These plans are to ana-
    lyze water and  related land resources management problems and serve
    as a basis for  recommendation  to Congress of priorities for "inves-
     tigation, planning, and construction of projects" (42 U.S.C. 1962(b)).

       In  order to  minimize collection of new data in preparation of
    a  Level  B plan, maximum utilization should be made of on-going State
    planning programs.  A  portion  of State input to Level B studies can
    be provided through these programs, but only if complementarities
    are identified. States should work to coordinate their State WQM
    Plan with any Level B  planning occurring within their State, and
Underground injection of
 pollutants
                           2-19

-------
provide the agencies responsible for Level  B planning with needed
water quality inputs.  In addition, the States should work with
the Level B planning agency to assure that  adequate attention  is
given to water quality objectives, expecially in areas with major
nonpoint source pollution problems.

   Level B plans can assist State WQM Plan  efforts by facilitating
interstate consistency in development and application of nonpoint
source control measures, and by providing a mechanism to identify
responsibilities of Federal agencies (through their involvement in
Level B planning) to eliminate or ameliorate point and nonpoint
source pollution.

•  Specific Program Relationships (S130.34(c))

   Where Level B studies are being conducted or have been completed,
outputs of these studies should be incorporated into the State WQM
Plan.  These outputs are listed in Part 130.34(c)(l)-(7).  Guidance
on incorporating these outputs into the State WOM Plan is discussed
below:

   -  Existing and Projected Water Withdrawals and Consumptive
      Demand

      This information should be related to municipal and industrial
   wastewater flow projections (8131.11(c)  of the State WQM Plan)
   especially where availability of water is a limiting factor in
   future development of an area.  Information on future surface and
   groundwater supply should be related to  water quality (including
   salt water intrusion and salinity) assessment and pollution
   control needs in the State WQM Plan.

   -  Water Supply Facilities, Effects on Water Quality

      Where.water supply facilities are projected, an analysis of
   their effect on water quality should be  included in the State
   WQM Plan.  The analysis should include assessment of the impact
   of water treatment processes (and associated residuals) on
   instream water quality.

   -  Water Development Measures, Watershed Management

      The water quality impact of existing  and proposed hydrologic
   modifications and management measures (dams, impoundments,  levees,
   channelization) should be included in the water quality analysis
   conducted in the State WQM Plan where such developments have a
                       2-20

-------
       substantial  impact on  water  quality  and  pollution  control  needs.

       -  Hi Id and  Scenic Rivers

          Where proposals are made  in  Level  B studies  for Wild  and
       Scenic Rivers  designation, or where  such designations  have been
       made,  the State should develop  appropriate  water quality stand-
       ards (including antidegradation policy)  and implementation
       measures in  the State  WQM  Plan.  In  order to protect  the rivers
       that are so  designated.

       -  Energy Development

          Where energy development  affecting water quality or quantity
       is projected,  appropriate  pollution  control  considerations should
       be incorporated into the State  WQM Plan.

    .   Future Level  B Studies S130.34(d)

       Where  Level  B  studies  have not  been  initiated to the  extent  that
    information is  available, an  analysis of the effects  of  the foregoing
    water development and conservation projects on water  quality should
    be developed in the State NCJM Plan as an input to  future Level  B
    studies.

(5) Relationship with Other State and  Federal Programs

    A number of Federal agencies  are involved in programs which are
related to the State  WQM Plan. These  may be classed as either  grant
programs or management and technical assistance programs.  Examples
of the former are the HUD 701 program, the Coastal  Zone Management
program under NOAA, and DOT transportation  plans.   Examples  of  the
latter are the activities of the  Army  Corps of  Engineers, the Soil
Conservation  Service  and the Forest Service. Other planning activities
may be carried on at  the State level in addition to those funded
through Federal programs.

    Since the planning efforts of these various programs  may have
direct interrelationships with the  planning done for the  State  WQM
Plan,  especially in the area of land use, steps should be taken to
ensure that there is  consistency  between the plans.  Coastal  Zone
Management Plans, for example, determine permissible and  priority land
and water uses for coastal areas  of a  State. HUD 701  Plans  similarly
include a land use element.  Such land use policies must  be  consistent
with the maintenance  of water quality  and nonpoint source controls  which
would affect land use.  Guidance  on techniques  for plan coordination
may be found in Chapter 12.
                             2-21

-------
    In addition to planning efforts,  other Federal  agencies  are
directly involved in programs within  the States which relate to
the State WQM Plan.  Many of the Corps of Engineers activities,
for example, can have a significant effect on water quality.  In
addition, the Corps provides technical assistance which can  be of
use to a State preparing a State WQM Plan.  One way this is  done
is through the Corps' Urban Studies Program which is concerned
with urban water resources problems,  including wastewater manage-
ment.  In addition, the Corps is specifically directed to provide
technical assistance for areawide planning (Section 208(h) FWPCA).
EPA and the Corps have developed an agreement which specifies the
coordinating and funding policy regarding this assistance.

    Other Federal land and water managing agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation should be
contacted by the State in order to work out specific arrangement
for developing water quality management plans for Federal lands.

    Other Federal programs can also be of use to the States  in
preparing their State WQM Plan.  The Soil Conservation Service of
the Department of Agriculture can provide technical assistance in
the assessment and control of nonpoint sources, expecially those
resulting from uses which can cause soil erosion.  In addition, all  of
SCS administered programs are implemented through local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts.  These SCO's can provide the means for
providing and disseminating information on nonpoint source control
techniques.  In some States the SCO's perform inspection and approval
responsibilities in connection with mandatory State sediment control
programs.

    The Forest Service, as land managers, needs to establish cooper-
ative planning relationships with each State that has U.S. forest
lands.  The State should develop specific agreements with the Forest
Service on how to relate their watershed management program  to the
State WQM Plan.  EPA can assist in establishing the necessary relation-
ships.  The Forest Service does provide technical and financial
assistance to the States for the administration of State and private
forest lands.  These programs should be coordinated with the State
WQM Plan.

    Other Department of Agriculture programs include the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service which can provide appropriate
grant and technical assistance for some of the structural Best
Management Practices that may be necessary for control of runoff from
farms.  The Extension Service can provide a very valuable information
base and provide the farmer with technical guidance for nutrient and
pesticide control.
                         2-22

-------
    In summary, the State should determine  the  relationship  between water
quality and other planning programs  within  the  State,  ensure consistency
between the plans, and work with Federal  programs  to make  use of  their
technical  expertise.

(6) Planning Requirements for Federal  Properties,  Facilities,
    or Activities SI30.37

    .  Compliance with State and Local  Pollution Control Requirements
       S130.35(a)

       The State holds ultimate responsibility  for ensuring  that  the
    WOM Plans are prepared and implemented  throughout  the  State.
    Federal facilities and in some cases  large  holdings  of federal
    lands are found in practically all  States.   Pollution  control
    requirements for federal facilities and lands  are  stated in Section
    313 of the Act, Executive Order 11752 and 40 CFR Part  130.35.
    The Executive Order requires compliance by  federal facilities
    with Federal, State, interstate, and  local  substantive standards
    and limitations dealing with the control  of environmental pollu-
    tion.  State water quality standards, effluent limitations and
    discharge permits are specifically cited as substantive  requirements.
    Compliance with other requirements including land  use  requirements
    or best management practices are not  specifically  cited  as
    substantive requirements.  Thus Federal agencies are required  to
    meet State water quality standards'but  are  given latitude to
    define their approach to meeting these  standards.

       Point sources are subject to MPDES permits.  For Federal sources
    EPA is the permitting authority.  For non-Federal  sources on
    Federal lands, the State issues the permits after  EPA  approves  the
    State's permit program.  Under Executive Order 11752,  the Federal
    Land Manager (FLM) determines what is a Federal  or non-Federal
    source on his lands.  The agency with State water  quality manage-
    ment point source planning responsibilities for Federal  facilities
    or lands should work with the FLM to  delineate which types of
    sources are federal and which are not.   In  general Federal sources
    should be those operated by the Federal agency or  in behalf of its
    mission.  Non-Federal sources would include effluents  from activit-
    ies carried out on Federal lands under lease or permit (timber
    harvesting, mining, recreational cabins, ski lodges, etc.).

       Where meeting the substantive requirements of State water  quality
    standards will require land management controls, as may be the case
    with nonpoint source pollution, these controls would be considered
    procedural for the purposes of Executive Order 11752.   Thus,  the
    FLM would be responsible for development and enforcement of  such
    controls.  However, such controls would have to be at  least  as
                            2-23

-------
        stringent as  State/local  controls  for  adjacent  lands with  similar
        kinds  of problems  and  characteristics  in  order  to  provide  needed
        levels of oollution  abatement.

        •   Federal-State Cooperation  in  Plan Development (S13Q.35(b)-(d))

           Federal  lands are an  area  of  overlapping  responsibility since
        the State is  responsible for  developing nonpoint source  abatement
        measures to protect  water quality  and  the FLM is responsible  for
        meeting water quality  standards  following this  plan or any other
        effective approach.   In  order to avoid duplication of planning, it
        is EPA policy to encourage the development of cooperative  agree-
        ments  between the  State  and appropriate FLM.  Such agreements
        should outline the responsibilities of both  the State and  the FLM
        in developing and  implementing the controls  necessary to meet water
        quality standards  on federal  lands including participation1 of the
        FLM on the State Water Quality Policy  Advisory  Committee,  and other
        policy advisory committees for planning areas within the State,
        development of Best  Management Practices, and establishment of any
        necessary implementing,  operating, or  regulatory programs. If no
        agreement can be reached the  differences  will.be mediated  by  EPA ,
        and, if necessary, by  the Office of Management  and Budget.

           All expenditures  necessary to plan  for and implement  point and
        nonpoint source controls are  to  be included  in  the budget  of  the
        FLM.  Under the provisions of Section  313 of the Act, no exemptions
        shall  be granted due to  lack  of  appropriation unless Congress fails
        to make the appropriation available.   This does not preclude  con-
        tractual arrangements  between the  State and  the FLM for  technical
        planning assistance.

C.  Preparation of Annual  State  Strategy

    1.   Purpose

        The State Strategy is  the management device  used to define water
    quality problems  Statewide,  prioritize the control  of  those  problems,
    schedule the corrective  measures  to  be taken, and generally  project the
    resources  needed  to accomplish the tasks.  Thus  the State Strategy
    provides direction for preparing  the Annual State 106  Program.

    2.   Relationship  to National  Program Guidance (S130.20(a))

        Prior  to the  development of the  State  Strategy, each State will be
    provided with the National Strategy  and National Operating Guidance
    developed  by EPA.  These two documents set out the  basic objectives and
                              2-24

-------
priorities of the National  Program and  should  give  the  States  enough
information to construct their own individual  Strategy, integrating
the essential requirements  of the National  Program,  while  incorporat-
inq more localized State needs.   The Regional  Offices will  assist  the
States in producing the proper balance.

3.  Contents of Strategy:

    -  Input to Strategy

       In gathering the information needed  to  develop an annual  State
    Strategy the following  information  should  be consulted:

       -  completed or ongoing State WOM Plans
       -  inputs for development of State WQM  Plans  (described in  Ch.  3.5)
       -  other planning activities related to water quality and water
          resources (described in Ch. 2.3.B)

    -  Problem Assessment (S130.20(a)(1))

       The first step in the development of the State Strategy is  the
    consolidation of available water quality data to assess water  quality
    problems Statewide.  The best way to aggregate  the  data is by  stream
    segment.  The quality of the waters  of  a segment should be defined
    at stream monitoring stations within that  segment.   Each segment
    should be analyzed on the basis of  the  criteria  set forth in approved
    water quality standards to ascertain the segment's  ability to  provide
    for a balanced population of fish,  shellfish, and wildlife and for
    recreational activities.  The State may find that present water
    quality conditions could be more appropriately analyzed at the basin
    or sub-basin levels.  However, for  consistency at both the national
    and State levels, each State should attempt to aggregate water
    quality data at the segment level.

       The State's annual water quality inventory report (305(b) Report)
    requires much of the same water quality assessment  data as the State
    Strategy.  Since the 305(b) Report  is intended to be far more  com-
    prehensive than the Strategy's problem  assessment,  the relevant
    aspects of the 305(b) report should be  used to constitute the  problem
    assessment.  EPA has previously provided the States with guidelines  for
    the development of the 305(b) report which should  be consulted.  After
    the water quality assessments required  under S131.11(b) and (d) have
    been developed, this information should be used in  preparation of the
    Annual State Strategy as well as the 305(b) report.
                           2-25

-------
-  Priority and Ranking (S130.20(a)(2))

   Based on the water quality assessment,  each  segment  within  the
State should be ranked in order of priority.  This  may  have been
done oreviously in Phase I Plans.   From  the water quality  manage-
ment plans completed in the past two years, and from routine or
intensive monitoring activities, the State may  be in a  position
to more accurately assess problem segments, and to  some degree, amend
the original ranking.  Generally,  water  quality limited segments
should receive a higher rank than  effluent limited  segments.  The
complex nature of a water quality limited  segment may require  a
longer time frame required to control pollution in  these segments.

   The water quality assessment should yield  most of the informa-
tion needed to rank the segments.   However, extent  of pollution
oroblem may not necessarily be the only  factor  used for purposes
of ranking segments.  Preservation of high quality  waters, the
size of the population being affected by a pollution problem,  or
other appropriate criteria may be used also.  There is  no  specified
weighting which any of the chosen criteria should receive  except
that the State should generally consider control  of its worst
oollution problems first.

   The ranking of segments should be used  together with the muni-
cipal treatment works inventory developed  pursuant  to SI31.11(c)
to formulate the State's project priority  list'required in S35.915(c).
Project priorities should reflect both the severity of pollution
oroblems in different segments (e.g. segment  ranking) and  the
severity of pollution problems caused by municipal  facilities  (e.g.
municipal inventory ranking).

-  Approach to Solving Problems (§130.20(a)(3))

   After the State has completed the ranking  of each segment,  the
next step is development of an overview  of the  State's  approach
to solving  its water quality problems.

   The overview should highlight only the most  significant pollution
problems and the State's approach to solving  them.   This information
should be readily available from completed water quality management
plans, or where there is none completed, from ambient monitoring
data.  The overview is intended to focus concern on the type of
pollution problems which generally exist in each basin or geographic
area of the State.

   In developing its overview, the State should decide which basins
or geographic areas exhibit pollution problems  of most immediate
concern and which areas will receive the major  concentration.   For
                       2-26

-------
examole, municipal  point source controls  may suffice,  or a  difficult
nonpoint source problem may dictate intense research and additional
monitorinq.   As nonpoint problems  are exceedingly difficult to
control, the State  should construct a realistic  long-term strategy
utilizing all available water quality data.

-  Scheduling of Programs (S130.20(a)(5))

   After basic problem identification has been cited,  basin or
geographic priorities listed, and  a general approach to alleviating
the problems conceptualized, the State should describe discrete
program activities  to implement the general scheme.

   A crucial aspect of scheduling  program activities  is their timing.
Each water segment should have the various activities  coordinated in
proper sequence.  Any facilities planning, permitting, construction,
monitoring,  or enforcement should  be planned so that  the actions taken
may be mutually reinforced.  Planning should generally be completed
prior to other actions being taken.  Municipal construction (grant
award) should be closely coordinated with any permit  activities.  Any
necessary action which the State plans over the next  five years should
be clearly spelled  out with proper phasing indicated.   This provides
a.mechanism by which the State can better assess the  objectives
necessary to upgrade water quality in each segment and ascertain
the resources needed to implement these various activities..

-  Program Resource Meeds (§130.20(a)(4))

   A necessary element in a definition of water quality problems
and solutions is an estimate of the resources that will be required
to implement corrective actions.  Such estimates should be consistent
with a State's Water Quality Management Plan, and cover a time  frame-
of sufficient duration to indicate a relationship between planned
actions and resource utilization.   Once determined, these resources
estimates will provide a basis for continuous program planning  and
budget justification.

   Each State is required to prepare and update annually a year-by-
year, five  (5) year estimate of the resources needed to conduct the
State program.  These estimates should be detailed by major program
element for the financial and man-year resource requirements for each
year.  Greater detail may be appropriate for the first year resource
estimates.  A description of the method or methods used to determine
estimates and projections over the five year period should be included
to indicate the relationship of future resource requirements to future
achievements.
                       2-27

-------
           Since the result of this  resource  estimation  is  important  in
        effective program planning and  budget justification,  the methodology
        used should be sufficiently  rigorous  to  assure a meanirigful statement
        of need.  EPA will  provide guidance on alternative  methods  for
        preparation of these resource estimates  and  projections.

        -  Monitoring Strategy (S130.20(a)(6))

           Refer to the discussion of monitoring found in Ch.  2.3.B.3.

    4.  Submission of Strategy (S130.20(b))

        The annual State Strategy should  be submitted as part of the
    Continuing Planning Process annual  review (see Ch. 2.3.H).  Both  the
    annual State Strategy and any revisions to the Continuing Planning
    Process should be submitted with the  Section 106 Program  Submission.

D.  Preparation of State/EPA Agreement  Including Delineation  of
    Planning Areas and Planning Responsibilities.

    Based on the information in the  State Strategy,  a specific agreement
on planning responsibilities and tasks  is needed in  order to  carry  out
the State WOM Plan.  This agreement  should be submitted within 150  days
after the effective date of the Part 130  regulations as  part  of the State's
continuing planning process submission.   The  agreement is to  be reviewed
annually and revised if necessary as part of  the annual  planning process
review (SI30.43).

    In order to specify the planning tasks and responsibilities in  the
State/EPA Agreement, the State should determine  the  areas where various
forms of planning are needed and the agencies that might be delegated
planning responsibilities in these areas. The following are  some of  the
steps leading to development of the  Agreement:

    1.  Segment Classification; Listing and Maps of  Basins'  or Approved
        Planning Areas and Segments  (8130.10(0(2),  (3))

        The Continuing planning process submission should delineate
    planning boundaries, including segments within those boundaries,  where
    the planning activities required in Part  131 are to  take  place.  It
    must be recognized that this delineation  of  planning areas depends on
    accurate assessment of water quality  problems and segment classification.
    However at the time of submission of  the  revised continuing planning
    process, it may not be possible  to  definitively  .classify  effluent
                                 2-28

-------
limited and water cmlaity segments due to the following factors:

    -  .lack of definition of water quality standards to achieve the
       1983 goals
    -  inadequate data  on the  high flow-wet weather problems caused
       by nonpoint sources

    .  Segment Classification

       The initial delineation of segments should be based on best
    available information and  may require further refinement.   However,
    the following segment delineation could probably be made notwithstand-
    ing the lack of information concerning the factors discussed above:

       -  Where segments are now classified as water quality limited,
       due primarily to point  sources for which effluent  limitations
       for 1977 and 1983 do not differ to a very large degree  (example:
       municipal  treatment  requirements), the probability is that the
       segment will remain water quality limited.

       -  Where increase in waste loads is expected to exceed  the
       assimilative capacity of the  stream after application of effluent
       limitations required by 1983,  the segment should be classified
       as water quality limited.

       -  Where a segment  is now water quality limited, with substantial
       nonpoint source  or  stormwater  discharges, it should be  tentatively
       classified as water  quality limited.

       -  Waters which  are  above standards and in which no degradation
       will be allowed  should  be classified as water quality limited.

       -  Where the existing classification is effluent limited and
       antidegradation  policy  will not be applied, assuming no  large
       nonpoint source  problems, and  assuming a moderate  amount of
       growth, the segment  may be tentatively classified  as effluent
       limited.

       -  Areas where the  State intends to certify pursuant to  §130.11(b)
       that no pollution problems exist, or will exist over the planning
       period, could be classified as effluent limited.

    .  Planning Area Selection

       The tentative segment classification will  indicate where differ-
    ent levels of water quality exist in the  State.   Based on  this
                           2-29

-------
tnfo'nna.ti.on,  planning areas can  be  delineated for carrying out
ttrer State.-WQM PI art.

   They revised Part; 130 re§u:lations; provide: f 1 ex.ibtl tty in the.
choice.1 of- planning area;.  The following; are-approaches  to, delineate
pianning  areas that may be: used,  singly or in comteination<:

   -  hydro! ogi'c  boundari es — Certain: of the;: requdremeats, of- the.-.
      States Wlp Plan (segment; c.lassificatioi., calculat-ton-. of total
      maximum; daJTy  Toads-) shouTd: gene.FaTly b£Ecarried;.out according;
      to  hydro1] og i c; unn ts.

   -  po.1 ittcal  boiradayies —•Poltttcal  units, may be-used  as plan-
      ning'  area-s. for carrying', out. the-, requirements, of the State
          Plan' with; respect to; deveHopment of abatement; mea,s;ures..
   Under either of these approaches;,  the-: State can be. divided:
qeetrpaphtcalTy  intoitmatuailly excTusiv^plann-ing areas..   However,
it" is; possible- to;.initerpret pTaran-ing' areai- as. referred, to in  S.13.0.11,
te mean any  areav for which, p.1 awraing. for. particular'problems, is
CQradta.c.te:dr..   UMer this latter interpretation5, i t: ts: possible- for
ot» form1 of  water p;o-llutToni protalem-- to:-.OMerlap:. with, areas  having
other forms. of water- po.l lutio.n.,    The- State may de-l ineate:
botb mcitBally  exelu&i«e- and: overlapping a-reas, and:: subareas.
Howeser, some requirements, sueh* as. the-waiter-quality analyses^
afidi determi.n-ati.OB of-maximum-allowable, pollutant loads, need, to
be coidaeted: for single, mutually  exclusive-/areas of the  State.
The foT 1 owing  are. factors to consider in determining, whether to
delineate areas for various forms  of planning:
                          2-30

-------
 -  Area versus category approach

    Once water quality analyses  including  calculation of  total
maxinum daily loads and wasteload  allocations  have been develop-
ed, there are two basic alternatives  for developing abatement
strategies to meet these wasteload constraints within given
planning areas.

    The area approach involves simultaneous  development of
alternative abatement measures for all  sources within the plan-
ning area.  To carry out this approach  requires  developing
estimates of pollution generation  for each unit  of land in  the
planning area and consideration  of alternative abatement  measures
for such units.  This approach depends  on  developing  a great
deal of information on the problems of  an  area before considering
abatement alternatives.  The advantage  of  the  approach is that
by developing a comprehensive analysis  of  all  the problems  of
an area, it is possible to consider the cost effectiveness  of
alternatives between abatement of  various  point  and  nonpoint
sources.  This approach is presented in greater  depth  in  Ch. 6.

    The category approach involves delineating subareas within  a
planning area where particular forms of pollution or  pollution
generating activity occur, and developing  abatement measures for
each of these pollution sources, one at a  time.   The  level  of
abatement for each source should be based  on the water quality
analysis (conducted on a hydrologic basis).  This approach  enables
focusing on priority problems and  developing immediate solutions
without having to consider the interaction and cost  effectiveness
tradeoffs among all the abatement  alternatives.   Under this
approach it is possible that one geographic  area will  be  in a
planning subarea for various forms of pollution.  It  is also
possible for the.subareas to overlap.  Planning  procedures  based
on this approach are further discussed  in  Ch.  3.5.

-  Areas where planning is not required

   Whichever of the above approaches (or combination  of approaches)
for planning area delineation is used,  it is possible that  there
will be areas where the State can  certify, pursuant to §130.11(b)
that no pollution problems exist.   While it  is conceivable  that
the State would delineate these areas along  political  jurisdic-
tions, it could even choose those areas where  no particular form
 of nollution exists to be delineated along  hydrologic  boundaries.
                       2-31

-------
       Lm addition to technical eon si derations,,, institutional
   factors- should he kept: in mind  in' determining  how  to delineate
   planning:; areas,  Part 130 regulations require-  institutional
   coordination  includtnq adequate, intergovernmental  input,
   public  partlci patron, and coordination with' other  planning
   activities.,   In addition, a  State/EPA Agreement on. leve.1 of.
   detail and  timing: should be  developed. f.o;n each planning. area.
   This- pi&c 65: practical limitations: in the- approach  of having
   overlapping planning areas.,   Consequentrly, wher«. comp-lfix.
   wa-ter qualify problems and.  i"n'sti:tuti"onaiT constraints, exist.
   to Statewide; p^ann'Tirg*,. the area- lev.el pilannint) approach i;s
            more feasible:.
2. D'esn'mation- of- Areawide? Planning  Areas' and. Agejrcies.;  Descriptiorn
   of E-xisfing  and:. Propnsgd. Designations (isno.. 13.).;.  (.13.1...TO(.e3,(f)')"
   Where: the  State ch'Oose'S:. to: delega'te. maijor planni-ng: res-ponsibi'Ti ti'es-
for dEwefopment of the SJta±e: WQM  P:lan  to a. single- representati've agency,
the" Sfefe snouild consider' designating, tne areai as an  areawi.de p.lanning
area1 pursuant to Section 2 08 (a) (' 2). -(4^] I.  Guidance; on. the  procedures and,
cri-teria for  desiTinattnp, such areas  will te? conitained: in  a- s-eparater
handbook entitie'd. "Area: and Agency Designation MandfeooJc. "  T.hi:s hand-
boo'k.wiTT1 be-  avail able? through  the EPA Regional Offices;.   This handbook
indicates the informaiiion to be s;ubmi:ttetl to EPA in  desc:ritin-g proposed
areawidB .pilanning agency designations.

3.., Dele-gatiGn of Planning Responsibilities (.ST30.TO(c:)(9) ,- Sl',30.14)

                Respons i bi 1 it i es ( ST30...1 4(a ) )
      As; part: of the work plan established in' the EPA/ State. Agreement
     : level  of detail and timing.,  and. the del in eati on of plannin-q

-------
areas discussed above,  each agency having  responsibility  to  carry
out an element of the work plan within  a given  planning area  should
be so designated.  Consistent with the  alternatives  for planning
area delineation, planning responsibilities  may be delineated on an
area basis (example:  all  of the approved  planning area or basin)
or on a category or problem basis (examnle:   municipal facilities,
or a given nonpoint source category within an approved planning
area).  However, certain tasks such as  the basic water quality
analysis are not easily divisible and should generally be carried
out by a single agency.

   Whatever division of planning tasks  is  followed  in a  planning
area, the State remains responsible for the  integration of  these
activities and is responsible for ensuring that all  the  elements of
the planning are coordinated and consistent. The State is also
responsible for ensuring that public participation,  intergovern-
mental input in the form of advisory group activities, and other
coordination functions  are carried out  in  each planning  area.
Because these coordination activities should be closely  related  to
the planning tasks, if  the State has delegated the major  planning
tasks to another agency, the State may  also  choose  to delegate
its supervisory and coordination functions as a lead agency  in the
approved planning area.  This lead agency  would then be  responsible
to carry out the public participation program,  the  coordination
with advisory groups and interagency coordination activities.  The
lead agency in the approved planning area  could also undertake the
day to day supervision  of the work plan for the area and  the
updating of the work plan.  It must be  emphasized,  nevertheless,
that any delegation of  the State's functions in planning, including
supervisory and coordination functions, does not modify  the  res-
ponsibility of the State to ensure that the requirements  of the
Act are carried out.

   As indicated below,  work plans should be drawn up for each
approved planning area.  Within each planning area  all  the tasks
needed for completing the State WOM Plan should be  assigned  to a
specific agency, and the subarea in which  the tasks  are  to be
carried out should be delineated.  The  lead agency  in the approved
planning area having supervisory and coordination responsibilities
should also be designated.  The lead agency should  be assigned the
tasks of public participation, coordination with advisory groups
of local officials and  interagency coordination.

   Consultation with Locally Elected Officials and  Local
Consultation with Local Iy
Organizations (S130.14(b))
   The State should develop appropriate mechanisms for consulting
with locally elected officials and local organizations for purposes
of determining planning responsibilities,  the public participation
                        2-33

-------
and intergovernmental cooperation procedures developed in the
continuing planning process (see Ch. 2.3.B) should be used for
consultation concerning delegation of planning responsibilities.

•   Description of Delegated Planning Agency(s) (§130.14(c),(d))

   In- describing planning agencies which have been delegated to under-
take- State WQM planning responsibilities., the agency's name, address.,
namerof director, planning responsibilities and. geographic coverage,
and-other pertinent information should be included as part of
the information furnished in the State/EPA Agreement.  In
addition, the agency designated to undertake State WQM Plan
responsibilities should furnish information demonstrating its
interest and: capability to undertake- the planning, responsibilities.
This information could consist of:

   - citation of the agency's planning authority
   - information on the agency's experience in related planning
   - intergovernmental agreements to. undertake planning
   - policy statements or resolutions of affected governments
   - information on the, availability of budget and staff to
     undertake planning.
   - any other information that the State might regard as
     necessary to indicate willingness to undertake planning

.   Nonptrint Source Planning Responsibilities

   In th& State/EPA Agreement that is initially submitted, the
State1 should explicitly make its intentions known regarding
nonpoint source planning and regulatory responsibilities in
areas where- 208 planning agencies have been designated, or where the
State-: intends to designate such areas.  If the. State intends to
undertakernonpoint source planning; and: regulatory activities in
areas already designated for 208 planning it should notify the
responsible agencies  in writing and. a^so, so; notify the EPA
Rtegiana;] Administrator.  The State, shouldr reguest the-EPA Region-
a-1 Administrator to aporopriate-ly modify the areawide planning
project, work plan.  The: State should, indicate: its concurrence
with' any areawide planning project work plans when it develops
the StateyEPA* Agreement.

.  Additional Delegation to Planning Agencies (§130.14(6))

   Additional planning agency delegations: may be made through the
continuing planning process revision procedure.
                         2-34

-------
    4. State/EPA Agreement  for  each  Basin or Approved Planning Area
       (§130.11(6)1

       The State/EPA agreement  on  level of detail and timing of State
    WQM Plan preparation  is,  in effect, a work program for the State
    HQM planning effort.  An  agreement should be drawn' up for each basin
    or approved planning  area*, indicating the following information:

       -  boundary of planning  area  and subareas where
          specific forms  of planning may be needed,   (same as chosen
          pursuant to S130.10(c)(2))

       -.  level of detail of  plan  elements or outputs

       -  planning tasks  to be  accomplished to produce the elements of
          a State WQM Plan

       -  logical relationships and  interdependences between tasks

       -  planning agency responsible and timing of  each task

       -  lead planning agency  responsible for coordinating planning
          within the planning area.

       The level of detail  of planning will depend on the types of
    problems encountered  in the planning area and priorities for  resolving
    these problems.  Further  guidance on determining level of detail  of
    the elements of a State HQM Plan is contained in Ch. 3.

       •  Certification that  no Hater Quality or Source Control Problem
          Exists (S130.11(b))

          As indicated above, the  entire State should be divided  into
       planning areas within  which subareas having particular problems
       may be delineated  for  particular forms of planning.  In  the event
       that a particular  water  quality parameter for which a numerical
       standard exists is not being  exceeded, or that particular  types
       of pollution sources or  activities do not exist  (and will  not
       exist over the 20  year planning period), the  State may certify
       that planning for  these  water quality problems and/or sources  is
       not necessary.  These  certifications should be made for  each
       planning area where  the  water quality problems do not exist and
       should indicate:
Proposed or approved work plans  in  designated  planning  areas  may be used  to
satisfy the requirement for a State/EPA Agreement if the  State  so chooses.
                               2-35

-------
   -  the water quality parameter(s) not being exceeded

   -  activities or sources of pollution which do not require
      planning consideration

   -  geographic extent (if appropriate) of areas where problems
      do not exist, related to approved pi arming areas

   -  documentation supporting the certification (for example:
      water quality data, population and employment projections,
      nvdrologic or geologic information)

   The certifications should be submitted as part of the State/EPA
^trreement, which is to be submitted 150 days after the effective
date of the Part 130 regulation.

.  'Phasing of Planning (S130.11(c))

   Tine Agreement should specify phasing of each -element of §131 plans
for completion fey November 1, 1978.  The level of detail of each plan
element strould be such that upon completion of the element implementa-
tion of needed control measures can proceed expeditiously.  However,
as indicated in the igaidance on State WOM Plan development (Ch. 3.5)
in some cases, where uncertainty exists regarding the existence of
a past water quality problem or where implementation cannot be
.undertaken within the next five years, the lev-el of detail of plan
elements may consist of an assessment of control needs.

   "The following important dates should be kept in mind:

   -  'November 28., 1975 — final Parts 130, 131 promulgation

   -  January 27, 1976  — Identification of areas eligible for
                           designation under Section 208(a)(2)-(4)

   -  April 26, 1976    -- Continuing Planning Process Revisions
                           to be submitted by State to Regional
                           Administrator

   -  April 26, 1976    -- Complete documentation of areawide
                           planning area designations to be sub-
                           mitted to Regional Administrator

   -  May 26, 1976      --Regional Administrator to approve/
                           conditionally approve/disapprove
                           Continuing Planning Process

   -  July  1, 1976      -- Phase I Water Quality Management Plans
                           due where extensions have been granted

-------
          -  September 1976     --  Biennual Report to Congress on Municipal
                % September  1978      Meeds

          -  July 1977         --  Recommended  revisions of water quality
                                     standards due

          -  December 1977      --  Second  round of NPDES permits

          -  November 1,  1978  —  State WQM  Plans due  for final submission
                                     to Regional Administrator

          -  March 1, 1979      --  Regional Administrator to  approve/
                                     conditionally  approve/disapprove  State
                                     WQM  Plan

          Within a given  planning  area the State/EPA Agreement  should
       provide appropriate  timing  of the  various elements of a  State WQM  Plan,
       As the above schedule indicates, the  planning period  for preparation
       of the State WQM Plan is somewhat  more  than  2 years  (between finaliz-
       ing the State/EPA  Agreement and submission of plans).

E.  Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and  Definition of
    Antidegradation Policy

    EPA policy on the review and  revision of water  guality  standards is
stated in 8130.17.  Detailed guidance interpreting  how to meet  the require-
ments of S130.17 is contained in  Ch. 5.   The following is an overview  of
the steps that the State  would need to follow  to carry out  the  policy
expressed in 8130.17:

    1. Develop Standards  Revision  Policy  S130.10(b)(1),  (2)

       Recommendation for revision of standards are needed  for  two general
    situations:  first, to  adequately protect  existing instream beneficial
    uses (including high  quality waters for  which existing  standards are
    not stringent enough) and second, to  propose upgrading  of existing
    designated use classifications in order  to achieve the  1983 goals.

       In either of these situations, the recommended  standards should
    include the following basic characteristics:

       .  Appropriate beneficial  uses should be indicated and categorized

          Beneficial uses would include public water supply, propagation  of
       fish, shellfish and  wildlife, recreation, agricultural water  supply,
                            2-37

-------
       industrial water supply, and other uses of water including
       navigation.  The currently designated uses must be maintained
       with limited exceptions.  The existing, water quality supporting-
       these beneficial uses-would have to be maintained, protected, or
       improved, whichever beneficial uses were specified.  These uses
       should be consistent with the general we-lfare and must- provide-
       for protection of public health.  Thus water uses that only
       benefit particular users should not be chosen, unless these:
       uses do not preclude uses sought by the general public.

       .   Adequate criteria to support the uses: should be included

          Both narrative and numerical criteria should b.e specified at
       a  level needed to protect the beneficial uses.   The criteria.
       should cover those, pollutant substances- that represent
       serious existing or potential problems in-a water body and
       that would require limitation in order to protect beneficial
       uses.  The values chosen for numerical criteria should be consis-
       tent with those recommended in the EPA Document Qua.lity Criteria
       for Water, to be published pursuant to Section  304(a) of the Act".

       •   Anti-degradation Policy should be established and Implemented'

          The. State should determine how existing- higtv quality waters
       will be protected through implementation- o.f appropriate point
       an'd nonpoint source controls to be specified in- the State WOM"
       Plan.  If the State chooses to allow some deterioration  of
       existing water quality (where existing waters are at a level
       above that necessary to provide minimum protection of beneficial
       uses), it must meet the procedural requirements indicated in
       Part S130.17(e) as well as the substantive requirements  of other
       Federal law protecting existing water uses o.n Federal lands*"
       The- specific beneficial uses and necessary criteria to protect
       these beneficial uses should be indicated- for waters to be
       covered by the State's anti-degradation- policy  and implementa-
       tion programs

Other Federal laws that may protect existing instream  water quality"
include.,  but are not limited to:
    (i)      The Endangered Species Act
   (ii)      The Marine Mammal Act
  (in)      The Wilderness Act
   (iv)      The Coastal Zone Management Act
    (v)      The Safe Drinking Water Act
   (vi)      The National Historic Preservation'Act
  (vii)      The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
 (viii)      The organic acts and executive orders creating-
             Federal land managing agencies.
                             2-38

-------
    .   Other technical  and  procedural  requirements

       In addition to the basic  characteristic  described  above,  the
    recommendation for standards revision  should  conform  with  the
    detailed technical  and  procedural  guidance  on standards  revision
  .  contained in Chapter 5.

2.  Determine Relationship  Between Standards  Revision  Process
    and State WQM Plan Development

    In order to carry out water  quality analysis  and develop imple-
mentation measures, it is necessary to have a clear set of planning
objectives.  The State water ouality standards  as revised (or proposed)
consistent with 8130.17 will provide the primary  set of planning goals.
In revising standards it is also important to understand  the impli-
cations of a particular policy in terms of the  implementing actions
required.  Because standards revision and plan  development are two
interdeoendent processes that should be carried out in the same time
frame, it is necessary to make some simplifying assumptions in order
to initiate each process without depending entirely on the results of
the other process.  Once standards policies have  been  proposed and
implementing actions for these general policies evaluated, it is
possible to further refine  both  the standards policies and implement-
ing actions.

    The planning process can make recommendations for  revisions to State
water Quality standards where necessary.  The States are  not required to
adopt these recommendations.  If they are rejected, the plan must then be
modified to be consistent with the established  State water quality stand-
ards.  Table 2.2 outlines the general procedures  for carrying out both
the standards revision and  plan  development process.

3.  Determine Schedule for  Standards Revision (S130.10(c)(5))

    The continuing planning process submission  should  include a schedule
for carrying out the standards revision process described above.  The
schedule should indicate the following milestones:

    -  Timing for State transmittal of recommended standards revision
       policy consistent with §130.17 to planning agency(s) developing
       State WOM Plan

    -  Timing of planning agency(s) evaluation  of proposed or adopted
       standards revision

    -  Timing of public hearings on proposed or adopted standards revision

    -  Timing for State formal adoption revisions to proposed standards
       recommended by the planning process.

    In general  the State should attempt to develop a standards  revision
nolicy consistent with 8130.17 as soon as possible, in order to provide
planning objectives  to agency(s) developing the State WQM.Plan.  Sufficient
time  should be  alloted for the State  to conduct the procedures  required
under State law for  standards revision.  Adopted revisions of standards
must  be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1,  1977.


                           2-39

-------
             I
n,.t.-:il  Bi-.i..-f-...i.il  \'.-.c.\
ond CroU'i t  i ^ it.t.iii'.i
 Instream !iri-,.;i ki;>l
Uses at 19;:! 'io.il
Levels Cons hi lout with
40 CFR 130.17
 1.
 2.
4.
i;i'Vl-ll-pi:»:Mt  Of  jt.l'..
S'.:„.:.)!•;:•. rori. y  V.
loii'M'l"  L>i:.t in-j  I' ...•
i.; • ... i I u.,-tio:i  tis

with- -1!)  CKR  130.1/.
Determine whether
present use classi-
fications an;
appropriate to
retain existing
designated bene-
ficial uses and
protect existing.
1 nstrcaia.bene f i c ia 1
uses (including
policies of anti-
degradation)
I
Determine (on- a. pre-
liminary-basis) the
criteria, needed to.
protect existing
designated nnd. in-
stream. beneficial
uses... (Aiiuin.istra^ -
tor's, Quality
Criteria, far Water
should.be the basic
reference)'
i
Provide recommended
Standards revision
policy for existing
designated and in-
stream foum-f icial
uses? to,, pi aiming
agencies
	











Re-eva,l uate
feasibility of
maintaini ng
existing desig-

beneficial uses
I
_
1
^
If necessary, the
plan recommends
revisions. to the
state.water quality
standards (proposed

i
If a state: accepts
the plan recommenda-
tions, then the state.
can Initiate or com-
plete formal standards
revision, process re-
quirements to include
recommendations
1 . Proposed. upgraded
u.es that nil 1
resul t
in achiev'.'-

mont of. 1S83 ooal
levels
wherevcr

attainable






^














'/.. Determine (on a
preliminary- basis)
the criteria, .needed.
to protect proposed
upgraded, uses






3. Provid






e. recomnanded
Standards re-vi-s.ion
policy for upgrading-
uses to planning
agencies
1
























4. Re-eva.luate.
feasibility of"
up'irflri

classification:














































1 . Initial plan
development based
on (a) mainte-
nance of existing
designated, and
Instream
beneficial uses
y and anti-dcora-
dation pol icy and
(b) attainment
of upgraded uses
1
2. Develop alter-
native plans
to achieve
the proposed
or adopted
standards
I
3.. Determine.
envi ronmcnta:! ,
social and

pact of proposed

	 a nerna tives.
•to achieve
the proposed
or: adopted
standards .

6. If a state re-
jects the plan
reconiunidations.
then the plan

	 > must be modi -
fled to conform
to established
standard policy
•I-
7.. Complete formal
plan adoption
process


                                         2-40

-------
F.  Preparation of State Hater Quality Management  Plans

    The continuing planning process stages  described  above  are  primarily
organizational  and management stages,   the  State HQM  Plans  on the  other
hand is the vehicle for determining the actions  to be taken to  meet
water quality goals.

    1.  Requirements for Preparation of State MOM Plans (§130.10(a)(4),  (5))

       The continuing planning process submission  should  indicate  how  the
    State intends to comple'te the requirements  for State  WQM Plans,  including
    standards revision and antidegradation  policy. The State/EPA  Agreement
    should serve as the basis for indicating the State's  approach  for  meet-
    ing the State WDM Plans requirements.   Guidance on meeting  these
    requirements is presented in the chapters that follow.

    2.  Review and Certification of Plans for Areawide Planning  Areas

       Procedures for review and certification  of  areawide  plans pursuant
    to §131.20(f) is discussed in Ch.  3.7..

    3.  Designation of Management Agencies  (S130.15)

       °.  Timing of Designations (§130.15(a))

          The requirement that the continuing planning process  identify
       management agencies (§130.15) should be  fulfilled  when specific
       elements of the State WQM Plan  have  been  developed and proposed
       for implementation.  Agencies to implement  elements  of the  State
       MOM Plan should be indicated in completing  elements  (n)  and (o)
       of 40 CFR Part 131.11.

       .  Designation Prior to State HQM Plan Completion  (S130.15(c))

          The timing requirements for various elements of the State  WQM
       Plan have been discussed in Ch. 2.3.D.  Management agencies should
       be designated for each part of the  State WQM Plan  which  can be
       implemented as a discrete plan element.   The designation should be
       timed to coincide with the completion of the corresponding  element.

          A detailed discussion of the legal authority,  financial  capa-
       bility, and managerial and institutional  capabilities of operating
       and implementing agencies is discussed in Chapters 9-11.
                              2-41

-------
        Procedures for designating implementing and operating  agencies
        are- discussed In Ch. 3.7 as part of the; procedures  for review/
        approval of State;WON! Plans..

G.  Outputs:  Description of State Continuing Planning
    Process 81.30.10(a)-(c)"

    After each of the major steps in developing, the.continuing, planning
process have'been completed, a description of the.-overall process  should.
be prepared.  The. description should cover each of  the process  elements.
required under §130.10(a)-(c).

    1.   Optimal Format, for Continuing. Planning Process Submission

        For purposes of simplifying the description of-these process  ele-
    ments, the, continuing planning process submission might, where.appro-
    priate., describe the following, characteristics,  of the. process,  elements:

        .  Purpose. -- purpose of element, including description of how- the
                      element meets statutory requi rements

        .  procedures — procedures that the State  will use; to  carry  out
                         each, element in the-Continuing Planning Processt
                         (including revision of the element)

        .  inputs/   — inputs to the elements:, outputs:, and relationships
           outputs      of inputs and outputs to. other elements'

        .  timing — timing of the element

        .  supporting documents -- any specific supporting  information
                                   required, in Part 130

        For example, taking the general requirement of the-  process  des-
    cription which calls for a description of public participation  in
    the Continuing Planning. Process (S130.10(a)(T)), the State  might
    answer the. following questions in developing.'this, part  of;  its  process
    description:

        .  purpose. — What is the purpose- of public: participation; at
                      various stages of the process?

        .  procedures. — How is an effective, progranrof public  participa-
                         tion structured with- respect to. the various
                         stages of planning?:  What  forms'or. techniques, of
                         publ i c parti ci pation:, are. used.?;  What, i ns ti tutional
                         arrangements, are used.?.
                               Z..-42

-------
       .   inputs/  -- In what manner  is  information gathered through
          outputs     public participation  used  as an  input to decision
                      making?  How  is the public kept  aware of the
                      results or outputs of decisions  in  the process?

       .   timing -- When do the various  public participation activities
                    occur?  How much  time is given to  the public  to
                    respond to decisions made in the process?

          supporting documents -- Any additional documents needed to
                                 describe\the State's program for public
                                 participation.

       A  completed continuing planning process'description could  thus  be
    organized around the characteristics of each element  of the process
    suggested by this format.  A summary 'of the  process description could
    be displayed in a table such as the  following (see Table 2.3).  The
    States should be encouraged to  develop  whatever outline for describing
    their planning process that seems most  appropriate.  The significance
    of the format suggested above and the format for a summary of the
    process description is that the State should attempt  to develop a  very
    simple reference document which would serve  as an  index for anyone
    interested in the State's water program to understand the way in which
    the program was managed, its program elements, their  relationships,
    timing, and interaction with other activities.

H.  Planning Process Adoption and Approval  Procedures

    1. Planning Process Adoption (S130.40(a))

       All States will be required  to revise parts of  their continuing
    planning process in order to incorporate substantive  changes  in  the
    processes such as the State/EPA Agreement on carrying out State HQM
    Plans.  All States will also need to reformulate their continuing
    planning process in order to comply with the revised  requirements  of
    40 CFR Part 130.  Submission of the  Continuing Planning Process
    description or elements of the  process  requiring revision is  required
    150 days after the effective date of 40 CFR  Parts  130/131 regulations.
    In order to meet this time schedule, the planning  process description
    should be formally adopted by the State after appropriate public
    participation before the 150 day period expires.

       Formal adoption of the process entails certification by  the
    State agency having authority over water quality planning and imple-
    mentation, that the process will  be followed as  the management and
    decision making framework for all activities of  that  agency.
                             2-43

-------
Table 2.3  Optional Format for Summary of
        Description ofTtate Continuing Planning Process
Elements of Process
A. Process Design
1. State Agency Responsible for
Coordinating Continuing Planning
Process and State WQM Plans
2. Statement of Planning Authority
3. Preliminary Description of
Process Requirements
4. Review and Revision Procedures
Requirements
of Part 130
§130.10
(cH6)
(c)(H)
-
§130.43
Description of
Flpment Q
/^Mf





B. Process Inputs
1. Public Participation
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation
and Coordination
3. Program Coordination
a. Waler Program Relationships
b. Coordination .with other Local,
State., and' Federal Programs
§130..10
(a)(2),(c)(10)
(a)(3),(c)(8)

C.. Preparation of Annual State
1 Strategy

D. State/EPA Agreement (including
Delineation of Planning Areas and .
Planning Responsibilities)
1. Segment Classification; Listing of
Basins or Approved Planning Areas
and Segments
2. Designation of Areawide Planning
Areas and Agencies
3. Delegation, of Planning Responsi-
bilities
4. Annual Preparation/Revision of
Agreement
§130.10










































§130.10
(0(7)
(cj(9J

,
E. Review/Revision of Water Duality
Standards and Definition of
Anti degradation Policy
§130. 10
(b){2)
(c)(5) v
\
F. Preparation of State Water Quality
Management Plans
1. Requirements for State WQM
Preparation
2. Review and Certification of Plans
for Areawide Planning Areas
3. Designation of Management Agencies
... .to Implement Plans
S.130.10
(a) (4)
(bH3)
\
§130.15

















































I
i
Outputs: Description of
State Continuing Planning Process
(seejabove)
                                      run
Planning- Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
"I. Planning Process: Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval


§130.40.
§130.. 40 .
§130.41-42.















                  2-44

-------
2. Submission (S130.40(b),  (c))

   After the State water quality agency has  adopted  the  description
of the planning process, the Governor or his designee  is required  to
submit the adopted process  to the Regional Administrator within  150
days after the effective date of 40 CFR Parts 130/131  revised  regula-
tions.

   The Governor or his designee  is required  to notify  the Regional
Administrator by letter of  the process submission and  furnish  a
description of the process  itself.  This guideline has been  developed
to facilitate preparation of the process description.  The description
could follow the format suggested in Table  2.3 or any  other  format
suitable for describing the continuing planning process.

3. Review and Approval (8130.41)

   The Regional Administrator is required to approve,  conditionally
approve, or disapprove the  planning process  within 30  days of  its
submission by the Governor.

   .  Full Approval

      The Regional Administrator is required to approve  a planning
   process description (and so notify the Governor by  letter)  if,
   the process meets the requirements of the Act and 40  CFR  Part 130
   revised.

   .  Conditional Approval  or Disapproval

      In the event that the Regional Administrator finds that  the
   process is deficient in  providing the elements required in  a
   continuing planning process,  he may specify in a  letter to  the
   Governor particular deficiencies and a schedule for resubmitting
   the elements of the process found deficient.

      The Regional Administrator may disapprove the  entire process
   if it is found grossly deficient and does not reasonably  demon-
   strate a coherent management  approach to  completing the substantive
   elements of a Stat$ WQM  Plan  by the statutory deadline.  If the
   process is disapproved,  specific deficiencies and a schedule  for
   resubmission should be set out in the letter of notification  to
   the Governor.

   .  Withdrawal of Approval (§130.42)

      Any plans developed under  the process  that do  not  meet the
   requirements of 40 CFR Part 131 should be viewed  by the Regional
                             2-45

-------
    Administrator as indication  of a  possible deficiency in  the
    management approach (e.g.,  the continuing planning  process)  used
    by the State to develop State  WOM Plans.

       If the Regional  Administrator  finds  deficiencies in State WQM
    Plans or portions of the plans, he should initiate  an inquiry
    into the cause of the deficiency  and ascertain  which elements of
    the continuing planning process were not  carried  out as  planned,
    and what changes might be needed  to make  the process operate more
    efficiently.

       After .conducting an investigation of the causes  of State  WQM
    Plan deficiency and the relationship of such deficiencies to the
    Statels continuing planning process, the  Regional Administrator
    may disapprove the continuing  planning  process  by formally notify-
    ing the Governorlaf the affected  State, and indicating the specific
    remedy for correcting the inadequacy of the process and  a schedule
    for corrective .action.

4.  Review and Revision (SI30.43)

    The State's procedure for review  and revision of  its continuing
planning process should be specified  in its continuing  planning
process description as suggested in Ch. 2.3.A.
                            2-4fi

-------