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 ------- |