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
------- |