STATE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS
HANDBOOK
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
DECEMBER 1975
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE iv
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Handbook 1
Why a Continuing Planning Process is Needed 2
PRINCIPLES OF THE REVISED REGULATIONS 4
CONTENTS OF A STATE SUBMISSION: REQUIREMENTS AND EXAMPLES 13
1. SUMMARY 16
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 20
3. INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE, AREAWIDE
PLANNING 23
4. PLANNING COORDINATION 30
5. PREPARATION, ADOPTION, REVISION OF WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PLANS 35
6. REGULATORY PROGRAMS 42
7. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS/ANTIDEGRADATION 44
8. STATE STRATEGY 48
9. LIST(s) AND MAP(s) OF STATE AND AREAWIDE PLANNING AREAS:
AREAWIDE PLANNING AGENCIES 50
10. LIST(s) AND MAP(s) OF SEGMENT CLASSIFICATIONS 54
11. STATE/EPA AGREEMENT ON LEVEL OF DETAIL AND SCHEDULE OF
PLANNING 59
12. IDENTIFICATION OF STATE PLANNING AGENCY 65
13. STATE'S PROGRAM TO MANAGE PLANNING IN DESIGNATED 208
AGENCIES 68
14. STATE DELEGATION OF PLANNING 70
15. POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (s) 74
16. LEGAL AUTHORITY 77
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Page
CHART 1. CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS: WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE .... 40
CHART 2. SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY 46
CHART 3. ASSIGNMENT OF PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES (Who does What). 61
CHART 4. PLANNING DETAILS, PLANNING PRIORITIES, SCHEDULE (How
much planning, where, when) 78
MA]' 1: STATE OF FRANKLIN: CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS STATE
PLANNING AREAS, DESIGNATED AREAWIDE 208 PLANNING AREAS,
PROPOSED FOR DESIGNATION 51
MAP 2: STATE OF FRANKLIN WATER QUALITY SEGMENTS 58
ii
-------
NOTE '
This document is not a replacement to the Act, the Regulations or
official EPA Policy Statements. It is a supplement to these documents,
showing hypothetical examples to assist States in responding to the
State Continuing Planning Process requirements. The examples in this
handbook do not constitute a uniform National EPA Standard of accepta-
bility. Any clarification and specific conditions applicable to a des-
ignated area should be discussed with the EPA Regional Offices.
111
-------
PREFACE
This is another in a series of handbooks designed to provide
State and areawide agencies with additional assistance in water quality
management planning and implementation. Designation, Grant Application
and Work Plan, Cost Analysis, Interim Outputs, and Management Agencies
han
-------
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Handbook
This handbook is designed to assist State agencies and Environ-
mental Protection Agency personnel in regional offices in meeting their
responsibilities under the new regulations which govern Water Quality
Management (WQM) planning, parts 1301 and 131. Both the States and
areawide agencies have responsibilities under the regulations, but the
States have immediate tasks. Within 150 days of the effective date of
these new regulations, the States must revise their existing Continuing
Planning Process and submit a new description of the process to the
Regional Administrator of EPA. This handbook is intended to aid in pre-
paring this submission.
Most existing areawide planning agencies have already received
the necessary EPA planning process approval required by these regulations,
when their workplans were approved prior to receiving their full areawide
planning grant. Workplans for forthcoming designated agencies will be
approved before they receive their entire areawide planning grant.
Part 130 of the new regulations describes the Continuing Planning
Process that is to be conducted by State and areawide agencies. Part 131
specifies the minimum content for water quality management plans produced
by States and areawide agencies under their Continuing Planning Processes.
Part 130 incorporates and supercedes the previous regulations for designa-
ting areas and agencies in accordance with Section 208(a)(2), (3), and (4)
of the Act, as well as the previous regulations governing the State's
Continuing Planning Process pursuant to Section 303(e) (Parts 130 and 131,
promulgated June 3, 1974). The new parts 130 and 131 consolidate the
requirements of Section 208 for areawide planning agencies and Sections
303(e) and 208 for State planning agencies, establishing a single State-
wide process that meets all requirements for water quality planning and
implementation under the Act. They also provide the States with a
1.
40 CFR Part 130, pursuant to Sections 208 and 303(e) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act), Pub. L. 92-
500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.)
2.
40 CFR Part 131, Ibid.
3.
Regulations under Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 35 set forth procedures for
obtaining grants for State and areawide water quality management plan-
ning.
-------
mechanism for developing implementable water quality management plans
for the entire State pursuant to Sections 303 and 208, reviewing and
revising water quality standards, developing and implementing an anti-
degradation policy, pursuant to Section 303(c); identifying critical
waters and total maximum daily loads, pursuant to Section 303(d);
assessing and projecting water quality pursuant to Section 305(b);
clecin lakes assignments pursuant to Section 314(a); preparing the
Fede.ral/State estimate of publicly owned treatment works construction
needs, pursuant to Section 516(b); and also provide data for the Federal
report on water quality, pursuant to Section .104(a)(5).
Before writing the submission for EPA, due within 150 days, the
States need to make several key decisions. Some of the most important
of these are: (1) design of a planning program and setting priorities,
(2) arrange for any delegations of State planning responsibilities to
local, areawide, state, interstate or federal agencies, (3) the Governor
needs to decide which additional areas and agencies he will designate for
areawide planning, (4) the Governor also needs to decide which State
agency he will choose to be the official lead agency for State water
quality planning, (5) the State's water quality planning agency needs to
set up a management program to oversee designated areawide planning agen-
cies, (6) identify resources available for planning, and (7) negotiate an
agreement with the EPA Regional Administrator on the level of detail and
schedule for water quality planning in State planning areas, and (8) pro-
vide for full public participation in designing the Continuing Planning
Process.
The revised Continuing Planning Process should be a concise state-
ment of "Who does what, where, and when" regarding water quality planning
in the State. It should show how planning will be conducted in non-
designated areas, how this will be coordinated with what areawide agencies
produce, how the state oversees areawide agencies, but need not describe
planning being conducted in the designated areawide agencies. The submis-
sion will revise the State's Continuing Planning Process description so
that it conforms to the new regulations.
The approach of this handbook is to summarize the requirements of
the new regulations governing the State's description of the Continuing
Planning Process and then give an example of each element of the submis-
sion. The example is based on a hypothetical State, and does not mean to
imply that this is the only or the best possible description of a planning
procass. The regulations allow, indeed they encourage, great variation
from State to State, so that each State can design a planning process that
best fits its needs.
Why -a Continuing Planning Process is Needed
The Continuing Planning Process (CPP) guides water quality deci-
sion-making over a twenty-year span, in increments of five years. The CPP
-------
is essential for clean water programs, both from a legal and a program
management standpoint.
Congress and the Courts have mandated that planning be conducted
by the designated areawide agencies and the States in order to achieve
and maintain clean water, including the 1983 water quality goals of fish-
able, swimmable water quality. In keeping with these goals, State water
quality standards and the State antidegradation policy should be reviewed,
and revised where necessary, early in the period covered by the Continuing
Planning Process Revision. Sections 102, 106, 201, 208, 209, 303,
305, 314(a), 516(b), 104(a)(5) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 all require water quality planning. A recent Federal
Court Order"* stipulates that Section 208 planning must be conducted by
the States in all areas that are not designated. An initial WQM plan
must be completed for all areas of the State by November 1, 1978.
Also, the Act requires that if a State wishes to receive delega-
tion of the NPDES permit program, it must have an approved Continuing
Planning Process.
In addition to these legal requirements for comprehensive water
quality planning, the process is an important way to guide various govern-
mental functions to achieve greater clean water benefits at least cost.
Planning has two features that are very much needed today in the water
quality management field: it is foreminded and coordinateve. It is
"thinking ahead" in an integrated fashion, which is essential given the
complex laws being implemented by many different federal, state, local
and areawide agencies. Without such planning, governmental actions can
be duplicated or left uncompleted, funds wasted, private individuals,
companies and governments needlessly disrupted. By contrast, planning
can help ensure that national and State goals are met in the most eco-
nomically efficient, politically responsive, and equitable manner. For
example, it can ensure proper regulation of pollution sources not too
much nor too little, the best allocation of governmental construction
grant funds and program personnel and ensure citizen participation in
fundamental policy-making.
4.
Court Order issued by Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., in Natural
Resources Defense Council et. al, v. Train, et. al, D. C. Civ. Act. No.
74-1485.
-------
PRINCIPLES OF THE REVISED REGULATIONS
The regulations, Parts 130 and 131, carry over several principles
from previous planning regulations, but also contain many new features.
In the past, water quality planning was conducted by the States for all
river basins, focusing primarily on point source of pollution. The regu-
lations now encourage improved institutional arrangements for planning,
broaden the scope of planning and provide added flexibility for the States
as to where, when and how planning will be conducted. A key change called
for by the regulations are an intergovernmental, cooperative approach to
planning among the States and areawide planning agencies. The States are
encouraged to delegate planning to areawide and other Federal, State,
local agencies, and then to oversee and integrate the planning outputs into
a comprehensive whole.
Twelve key features of the regulation are described below.
1. Planning Shall Guide Operations
Planning is to be a permanent process that guides the opera-
ting agencies. In the Continuing Planning Process, policies and proce-
dures are set. The Water Quality Management Plans, and the State Strategy
and Annual Program Plans that result from them, are the annual and long
term "marching Orders" for those management agencies which already exist
or will be designated by Governors. Thus, planning is the designing phase,
while in the operational phase policies are translated into action and
implemented. Planning is not an "ivory tower" activity conducted "down
the hall" in government agencies. Rather, it provides the thought and
guidance which directs all clean water efforts, precedes major management
and regulatory decisions and is a key management tool used by agency
directors. The regulations require that plans be carried out. The man-
agement and regulatory programs set forth in the plans are the means by
which plans are implemented.
The Water Quality Managements Plans that are produced are manage-
ment documents, that direct the various governmental actors in achieving
and protecting clean water. They are not static documents, but dynamic
guides; which are reviewed and if necessary revised annually to account
for changing environmental, economic and social conditions. They will:
identify water pollution problems
assess needs and setting priorities
schedule actions for federal, state and local govern-
ments and private pollution sources, including com-
pliance schedules and target abatement dates
-------
define regulatory programs to achieve water
quality standards and goals
define management agency responsibilities,
including regulatory and management agencies
actions for water and related land management
coordinate planning and management.
2. Intergovernmental, Integrated Planning
Whereas the State conducted most water quality planning by
river basins in Phase I, and designated 208 agencies conducted planning
on a local basis, the new approach encourages the State to delegate sub-
stantial portions of planning to areawide agencies, as well as to other
units of governments. The revised regulations support an active involve-
ment by the State in areawide planning to ensure areawide plans which are
approvable by the State. This concept recognizes that plan implementa-
tion must be intergovernmental, so that planning, too, must be inter-
governmental. State, local, areawide, interstate and Federal agencies
can all be included in the planning process, as appropriate. Planning
tasks can be taken on jointly, or in separate ways that can then be inte-
grated into a systematic whole. Intergovernmental cooperation is required
and two features particularly encourage this: the planning elements are
the same for State and areawide agencies, and the State Planning Agency
can delegate its State planning tasks to agencies of various levels of
government. There is also provision for local officials to advise State
and areawide planning agencies and for State representation on areawide
planning decisions.
3. Local Officials' Participation in State Planning
Just as the State must actively participate in 208 planning
within designated regions, locally elected officials must be given
structured opportunities to help draft the State's Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan. A state Policy Advisory Committee(s) will be formed, or an
existing one used, on which a majority of locally elected officials will
serve. It is important to involve local officials in planning decisions
in order to promote implementation at the local level. Local officials
often control sewerage and land use planning agencies.
4. The State Makes the Planning Assignments to All Governmental
Planning Agencies and is Ultimately Responsible for Coordi-
nation and Proper Accomplishment of All Planning Within its
Boundaries, Including Planning Within Designated 208 Areas.
-------
Existing areawide agencies have their assignments defined
by their approved workplans. While various levels of government are to
be equals in the intergovernmental planning process, the State orches-
trates the system. The State designates areawide agencies, oversees
areawide plan preparation, reviews interim products and certifies final
plans. The regulations provide the Governor with another opportunity to
designate areawide planning areas and agencies and encourages him to make
such selections. The State can delegate its own planning tasks, but must
see that all State and areawide tasks are accomplished and that all plan-
ning products form a systematic whole. The State Planning Agency is
responsible for assuring that planning is accomplished in designated
aree.s.
5. Flexibility in Designing a Continuing Planning Process
Great flexibility is given the States in designing the
Continuing Planning Process that best fits their needs. Flexibility is
allowed as to planning agencies -- the chief water quality planning
ager.cy may be the State's Water Pollution Control Agency, Department of
Natural Resources, State Planning Office, Interagency Task Force under
the Governor, Council on The Environment or other organization, as the
Governor chooses. There is flexibility for setting priorities, choosing
planning tasks, and strategies to mesh plans. Boundaries for planning
aree.s can vary from State to State and from planning element to planning
element even within one State. River basins, regional planning district,
soil conservation districts or other political or natural resource bound-
aries may be used. The institutional and analytical approach can vary
with the water quality problem, the type of solution considered likely,
availability of planning funds between State and local agencies, with
State and local officials' interest in planning, and with the govern-
mental style and preferences of the State.
The limits of the system are the 1983 water quality goals which
plans must meet, the November, 1978 deadline for initial submission of
areawide and State water quality management plans, and the approval of
the EPA Regional Administrator. The Regional Administrators are the key
decision-makers within EPA regarding the Continuing Planning Process, and
must approve State priorities, planning schedules and delegations, water
quality standards and areawide and State water quality management plans.
6. Priorities
While Water Quality Management planning is to be done every-
where in each State, the State will set priorities for planning within
-------
geographical areas and by planning elements. Planning need not be per-
formed everywhere all at once, and there can be areas where the State
certifies that particular water quality problems do not exist and that
planning will not be carried out. But where it is needed, priorities
and schedules are set that will best serve regulatory, management and
other program needs and fit available resources. Each year the Continu-
ing Planning Process puts out useful products and each year takes on new
assignments and builds on previous knowledge to broaden, deepen and im-
prove information, policy and programs.
7. Deadlines in the Continuing Planning Process
While each year the planning process produces usable guides
for management, and each year takes on new and more complex assignments,
initial State and areawide plans must be completed by November, 1978 and
submitted to the Regional Administrator for approval. This date was set
by the Courts for State drafted plans. However, States and areawide
agencies should maintain planning schedules beyond 1978 and expect their
planning programs and products to continue to evolve. Planning programs
do not cease to exist after the initial 1978 plan submission is met.
Other State deadlines in the regulations are:
60 days, (January 27) the Governor identifies areas
and agencies eligible for 208 designation and noti-
fies affected elected local officials,
150 days, (April 26) the Governor holds public hear-
ings in affected areawide planning areas and submits
final decision on 208 designations to the Regional
Administrator,
150 days, (April 26) from the effective date of the
new regulations, the Governor submits to the Regional
Administrator a re-revised statement of the State's
Continuing Planning Process,
150 days, (April 26) the Governor submits pollution-
related information on each areawide planning area
and agency to be designated during FY 1976,
180 days, (May 26) (or 30 days after receipt of the
submission) the Regional Administrator approves/con-
ditionally approves/disapproves the process descrip-
tion,
-------
June 1, 1976, is an EPA Administrative deadline in
Section 208^ grant regulations. Each EPA region is
given an allocation of 208 planning funds to be used
by State and areawide planning agencies, based on a
formula that combines population and land area con-
siderations. As soon as possible after planning funds
are appropriated, the Regions receive their allotment.
The Regional Administrator then negotiates grant
amounts with State and areawide applicants within the
Region. On June 1, 1976, all unobligated funds remain-
ing within a Region will revert back to the Administra-
tor for reallocation to other Regions that demonstrate
a need for more funds. In FY 1977 and subsequent years
unobligated funds will revert back to the Administrator
90 days after the date the final Regional allowance is
issued, or not later than 30 days prior to the end of
the fiscal year, whichever is earlier,
Annual submission of State Program Plan to the Regional
Administrator, pursuant to Section 35.555, accompanied
by a letter from the Governor to the Regional Adminis-
trator. This submission updates the State Strategy and
revises the Statement of the Continuing Planning Pro-
cess, if needed,
Prior to 1977, water quality standards are to be review-
ed and revised "in ample time to be used for a basis for
1977-1983 management and regulatory decisions."^,
November 1, 1978, initial areawide and State water
quality management plans submitted to the EPA Regional
Administrator,
March, 1979 (or within 120 days after receipt), the
Regional Administrator approves/conditionally approves/
disapproves water quality management plan,
1983 goals of fishable, swimmable water quality are to
be met, with certain exceptions. (See contents of a
State Submission, item 7.)
5.
40 CFR Part 35, "Grants to State and Designated Areawide Planning
Agencies". Section 35.204 "Allocation of Funds."
6.
40 CFR Part 130, Section 130.10(c)(5).
-------
8. Time Horizons for Planning
The State program planning cycle is annual, which feeds
into a five-year horizon for the State Strategy, which is part of the
longer-term 20 year horizon for the Water Quality Management Plan.
0 Annually, the State submits the State Program Plan,
which sets program plans for that year, allocates
people to programs, and determines required resources,
and revises the State Strategy and the description of
the CPP, if needed. This can be tied to a State's
planning and budgeting cycle, and any annual review of
State planning products and reviews established to
manage planning in designated 208 regions.
The short-term planning horizon is five years. The
State Strategy is prepared for five years and revised
annually.
The long-term time horizon is 20 years in five year
increments, for use in projecting land use changes,
economic and demographical conditions and resulting
future wasteloads. This is the horizon for Water
Quality Management Planning.
Each year with the greater knowledge provided by the Continuing
Planning Process and other sources, the responsible State Planning Agency
reevaluates (1) the need for planning outputs, (2) the time when those
products will be needed, (3) the resources available for planning, and
(4) the performance of individual planning agencies and the whole system
of planning agencies. The planning products are evaluated as to their
usefulness and accuracy, responsiveness to the public's wishes and the
degree to which they have been implemented. Then, the schedules, priori-
ties and planning assignments are adjusted, if necessary, in a State
Strategy which outlines the general approach to solving water quality
problems that are known to exist. The State Program Plan then allocates
resources to carry out the strategy. The outputs of the Water Quality
Management Plan lead to strategy revisions which begins the cycle again.
The State Strategy translates the finding and guidance from the
water quality plans into required actions from operational divisions
construction grants, permits, monitoring, etc. The Strategy sets five-
year targets and actions for State and local agencies. The State
Program Plan is a one-year segment of this five-year strategy, program-
ming actions for the coming year and allowing progress toward objectives
to be measured each year. Each year the findings, conclusions and
-------
recommendations that flow from planning products are translated into
operational programs and implemented. Interim outputs such as wasteload
allocations and water quality standards revisions, after appropriate public
participation, should be adopted at the first opportunity in order to be
used by other program elements. Implementation of plans does not await
the 1978 plan submitted to EPA.
9. Scope of Planning is Greater
The scope of planning under the new regulations is greater
and includes all significant topics all water pollution sources and
all possible technical, management and regulatory solutions. The assess-
ment and control of nonpoint sources and focus on land use matters are
new features for most State Water Quality Planning.
The planning elements are to be the same for each approved State
planning area and each designated areawide region. However, the level
of datail required will vary with water quality problems from intensive
planning to none.
The State and areawide Water Quality Management Plan contains
these elements:
Items relating to identification of water pollution
problems and goals
a. planning boundaries (including geographical
boundaries of State planning areas, location
of segments and significant dischargers and
monitoring stations)
b. water quality assessment and segment classifi-
cation
c. inventories and projections
d. nonpoint source assessment
e. water quality standards
f. total maximum daily loads
g. point source load allocations
10
-------
Analysis of all possible solutions
ho municipal waste treatment systems needs
i. industrial waste treatment system needs
j. nonpoint source control needs
k. residual waste control needs, land disposal
needs
1. urban and industrial stormwater needs
m. target abatement dates
n. regulatory programs
o. management agencies (including institutional
and financial analysis)
p. environmental, social economic impact of the
plan.
While the State must ensure that all these planning elements that
need to be addressed are addressed for all areas of the State, it does not
have to do the planning itself. Indeed, the intent of the regulations is
that much of this work will be delegated either to designated areawide 208
agencies or in non-designated areas, to other Federal, State, or local
agencies. The items that the State must do itself are adoption of water
quality standards, development and implementation of statewide antidegrada-
tion policy, certification of areawide plans, yearly preparation of the
State Strategy and Annual Program Plan and oversight of planning conducted
in 208 agencies.
It should be noted that while the scope of planning has increased,
EPA hopes that planning documents will be shorter than in the past. By
the use of priorities in planning and more concise writing, more analytical
material can replace previous voluminous, descriptive reports.
10. Planning Coordination
Areawide and State Water Quality Management Plans are to be
coordinated with water quality planning in adjacent areawide agencies and
neighboring States. Also, water quality planning is to be integrated with
water use, land use and other natural resource and developmental planning
within the same State and planning area, so that confusion, duplication
11
-------
and conflicts are prevented. (A more detailed discussion of this
requirement is provided below in the "Planning Coordination" section of
the sample State submission.)
11. The Continuing Planning Process Shall Build on Existing
Plans and Existing Organizational Arrangements
The new regulations and the process they encourage hope to
build on existing Phase I water quality plans, use existing planning and
advisory organizations to the greatest possible extent, and then improve
and build on these solid bases. Existing organizations, such as state
agriculture and natural resource departments, and local planning commis-
sions, are encouraged to be used, but in new and different ways. The
regulations are not an attempt to overturn what is already in place, or
discard valuable work that has gone before. Rather, these new regula-
tion;? define the next stage, Phase II, in the evolutionary process by
which planning is changing in the water quality program.
12. Full Public Participation Must be Structured and
Encouraged
As in the past, active and meaningful private citizens
involvement in policy-making and programs must be assured, including the
State's Continuing Planning Process. Public participation regulations
that apply to the entire Act apply to planning processes as well. (For
details see Sample Submission Element #2, "Public Participation".)
12
-------
CONTENTS OF A STATE SUBMISSION: REQUIREMENTS AND EXAMPLES
This section gives details on the State's submission of the
revised Continuing Planning Process to be made within 150 days of the
effective date of the new regulations. The description of the State's
CPP is divided into 16 parts. For each part the requirements from the
regulations are summarized and then an example is given of a hypothetical
State submission. The 16-section format and the language in the examples
are only suggestions and States should not consider them as requirements
for their actual State submissions. Details of the form of the Continu-
ing Planning Process submission should be worked out with appropriate EPA
Regional Offices.
EPA realizes that these initial State submissions which must be
made in about five months will be constrained by the short period of time
allowed for process revision and other needed actions, as well as the
uncertainties of federal and State funding for planning. The examples
are written with these limitations in mind, and try to show what kind of
submissions will be acceptable as a first effort. However, EPA and the
States should expect annual State program submissions to include revi-
sions of and elaboration of parts of the Continuing Planning Process in
order to make more complete the workplans for water quality management
planning. Just as the CPP evolves and improves, so will the framework
and description of that process. The main thrust of this initial revi-
sion to the Continuing Planning Process should be the philosophy and
general approach for State planning, the institutional arrangements and
overall work plan and not fine details on the conduct of each planning
element.
The sample submission describing the State's Continuing Planning
Process includes:
1) short summary of the planning process
2) public participation
3) intergovernmental contributions
4) planning coordination
5) preparation and approval of State and areawide water quality
management plans
6) regulatory programs
7) water quality standards/antidegradation
13
-------
8) State Strategy
9) list(s) and map(s) of existing and proposed State
areawide planning areas; timetable for new areawide
designation
10) list(s) and map(s) of segment classifications
11) State/EPA agreement on detail and schedules for
planning
12) the identification of the State Planning Agency
13) State's program to manage planning in designated
areawide planning agencies
14) State delegation of planning responsibilities
15) policy advisory committee(s)
16) legal authority.
14
-------
15
-------
A useful first section to a State's submission, although not
required by the regulations, is a brief, descriptive summary of the
Continuing Planning Process. A summary could cover the purpose of water
quality planning in the State and the role of planning in the State
water pollution control program, the division of roles between the State
and areawide agencies and, generally, how these processes and products
will be integrated; intergovernmentalism in planning; the status of water
quality planning and priorities for future planning. Key features and
changes over the State's previous water quality planning process should
be highlighted.
16
-------
The Governor of Franklin hereby submits the description of this
State's Continuing Planning Process, to. comply with Section 130.10(c) of
the revised policies for the Continuing Planning Process (40 CFR Part 130).
The water quality planning process, conducted under the leadership
of the State Water Quality Agency (SWQA), which the Governor has desig-
nated as the State Planning Agency pursuant to Section 130.12, provides the
technical data and management guidance for the attainment and protection of
water quality throughout the State. The process produces State Water
Quality Management Plans, the State Strategy, the Annual Program Plan,
water quality standards, annual assessment and projection of water quality
and all other planning requirements of the Federal Act and the Franklin
Water Quality Act of 1971. The process includes the following functions:
identify water quality problems
establish goals and State water quality standards
devises organizational and program responsibilities to
produce and implement the plans
integrates State and areawide water quality planning
sets priorities and resource commitments for water
quality program activities
integrates water quality management with other State
programs and policies.
The State's Continuing Planning Process is a decision-making
framework, linked to other required State and Federal actions. Each year
areawide, State and Federal planning participants will produce planning
outputs. These will be received, reviewed, approved and integrated by the
State Water Quality Agency to form the State Water Quality Management Plan.
The outputs will be considered interim outputs until November 1, 1978, when
the whole State WQMP will be adopted in accordance with Federal regulations
and submitted to EPA's Regional Administrator. The Governor will certify
areawide plans and these will be formally adopted as portions of the
approved State WQMP for specific geographical areas. The SWQA will write
a five-year State Strategy and extract a one-year increment to be called
the Annual Program Plan. These items and any revisions to the CPP descrip-
tion will be sent to EPA's Regional Office each year. At the same time
each year, the SWQA will prepare its program plans required by the State
Planning Office and the program budget for the State Budget Office. In
these State and Federal processes the actions called for in the water
quality plans will be incorporated into the program operations of the SWQA
and other State agencies.
The degree of complexity in both data gathering and planning under-
taken will reflect the extent and complexity of the water quality problems
in the affected area, as well as the adequacy of existing information and
plans. As a rule, water quality limited segments will receive the highest
planning priority.
The CPP described in this submission is the latest phase in water
quality planning, which has been evolving in this State over many years,
beginning in the 1950's. Although many point source analyses and major
municipal
continued
-------
facilities plans are completed( some are underway or about to begin.
Previous planning has been conducted pursuant to Section 303(e), and
before that 18 CFR Part 601, as well as that sponsored by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development sewer and water and 701 programs.
Point: source analysis for the State's three river basins is about 75%
complete, and the remainder is scheduled for completion by July 1, 1976.
Municipal and industrial loadings and waste load allocations have been
mostly completed. Initial designation of segments has been completed.
When facilities planning is underway or about to begin, the broader
outlook and approach of the water quality management plan will guide
facilities planning to the greatest extent possible.
However, existing plans are not adequate as a rule for nonpoint
sources agriculture wastes, forestry, mining and urban runoff, although
existing plans have identified problem areas, without quantifying loads and
recommending solutions.
Thus, the remaining water quality problems to be addressed by
planning and controls are combined sewer problems in two large cities
(located in designated areas), nonpoint sources, improvement in management
and regulatory analysis and updating of existing point source data, and
waste load allocations, revising water quality standards and segment
classification.
The State water quality planning process is an intergovernmental
one with integrated and cooperative roles for the SWQA, other State agen-
cies, areawide agencies and Federal agencies. The majority of detailed
planning will be delegated to five areawide agencies. Expected designated
areas would cover 80% of the population of the State, and all areas of
urban/industrial concentrations. Three areawide planning areas have
been designated and two more are expected to be designated this fiscal
year, one of which will be an interstate area. Areawide planning agencies,
which are Regional Planning Commissions for the affected area (planning
regions drawn by the State in 1969, and established as voluntary associa-
tions of local governments), or consortia of planning commissions, will
develop most detailed planning. Inventories and projections, load alloca-
tions , schedules of compliance will be addressed by areawide agencies.
Areaw:.de agencies will recommend revisions to water quality standards as
they affect their areas. The State will also analyze standards and for-
mally adopt needed revisions by December 31, 1976, and every three years
thereafter. The State will also set conditions for waters that form the
boundaries between two areawide planning areas and assign total maximum
daily loads. Thus, the State gives each areawide planning area a total
maximum daily load for the whole region, as well as water quality standards
and these set the goals for areawide planning. Within these parameters,
the areawide agencies will make individual waste load allocations and pre-
pare ether aspects of planning. If changes in existing point source
analysis and waste load allocations are required, the areawide agencies
will include them in areawide plans and the SWQA will review and
incorporate these into the State Water Quality Management Plan as appro-
priate. The SWQA will also refine river basin modeling, using data from
areawide agencies, State and other sources particularly with respect to
nonpoint sources. I
continued ....
18
-------
Most nonpoint source analysis will be performed by 208 agencies
and by a newly created interagency, intergovernmental Sediment Control Task
Force, which will assess sediment pollution and propose methods for sedi-
ment control statewide. This is to be set up Statewide because we antici-
pate a State regulatory solution or a new State law requiring local regula-
tions. Most of the other nonpoint source problems are specific to a partic-
ular body of water and will be studied by designated agencies. For
example, Lincoln Lake, a clean recreational lake, is experiencing rapid
recreational development and needs a long-term land and growth management
strategy. A new agency, Planning Area #11, will be recommended primarily
to study this problem. Nonpoint source problems which are not included in
designated areas will be addressed individually in the level of detail
agreement.
State and areawide plans will be used by the State to update and
revise existing basin plans, integrating the planning elements into a State
adopted Water Quality Management plan, to be submitted to the EPA Regional
Admini strator.
Planning boundaries will be primarily river basins, which coincide
to a large extent with the eight Regional Planning Commissions' boundaries,
which are politically determined. Sediment control will be studied State-
wide and regulatory and financial analysis will focus on the State govern-
mental level. Basin plans will be reviewed by the State each year, using
annual outputs that will be required of areawide agencies, the State Water
Quality Agency, the intergovernmental, interagency Sediment Task Force and
all other planning agencies. The State will integrate areawide agency
plans and other planning products into comprehensive water quality plans
for river basins. These will be revised each year if necessary, but not
rewritten or republished. Every six years all WQM plans will be completely
rewritten. The rewriting will be accomplished on a rotational basis with
two plans rewritten every two years.
Thus, there will be a strong role for the areawide agencies (the
Regional Planning Commissions) in water quality planning, planning coordi-
nation, information and assistance to local governments and the public.
There is also a major role for Regional Planning Councils in non-designated
State Planning Areas.
see:
For a summary of the approach of this State's Planning Process
Chart 1 - the schedule
Chart 2 - schedule for review and revision of water quality
standards
Chart 3 - "Assignment of Planning Responsibilities"
Chart 4 - "Planning Details, Planning Priorities Schedule".
19
-------
(Section 130.10(a)(1); Section 131.20(a))
As with the other sections of the Act, active public participa-
tion is required for the Continuing Planning Process. Involvement is
required during plan development, review and adoption in accordance with
Section 101(e) of the Act and in accordance with 40 CFR Part 105.
Since the State is responsible for the CPP and preparation of
Water Quality Management plans for the entire State, it is also responsi-
ble J:or public participation. However, if planning tasks are delegated,
public participation responsibilities can also be delegated to areawide,
other State, Federal or local agencies. All public involvement could be
deleqated to a State "Public Affairs" Office.
20
-------
The purpose of public participation activities in this State will
be to inform affected private citizens directly and through their organiza-
tions as to forthcoming decisions in the planning process, to give citizens
adequate opportunities to understand and comment on choices, and to incor-
porate the public's thinking into the planning decisions. Such participa-
tion has been and in the future will be particularly important in setting
goals and planning priorities. Public participation will be sought prior
to all key decisions, such as expected land use changes and growth projec-
tions to be used in planning, proposed management alternatives, land
management programs, antidegradation policy, and new regulatory and financ-
ing programs.
Public participation will be encouraged in several ways during the
development, review and adoption of the water quality plans. Various
organizations will be used and several written and spoken communication
devices enlisted to give information to the public and solicit opinions on
planning issues, including but not limited to public hearings.
The State Water Quality Agency will be the lead State agency
responsible for ensuring public participation, but opportunities to
participate in delegated aspects of planning will also be provided by the
other agencies to whom planning is delegated. Designated areawide agencies
will be responsible for public participation within their areas , while the
State will be responsible for public participation in non-designated areas.
The State will also review the programs established in designated areas.
Within the State Water Quality Agency, one person has been identi-
fied as public participation coordinator. This person serves as secretary
to the Citizens' Clean Water Advisory Board, which has been in existence
since 1973. This 18-member Board is composed of private citizens who
represent environmental and conservation groups, business, agriculture
and regulated manufacturing industry representatives, forestry, fisheries
spokespersons, and representatives of the planning, legal and scientific
professions. Members are appointed by the Governor to four-year terms and
come from different geographical areas of the State. As noted later in
this submission, the State Water Quality Agency also maintains a Policy
Advisory Committee for each State planning area, composed of elected
officials and Directors of Regional Planning Commissions and representa-
tives of State and Federal agencies.
The Citizens' Advisory Board operates through subcommittees that
relate to various planning elements, such as an industrial waste sub-
committee, and an agricultural waste subcommittee. Other subcommittees have
been established for planning methodology, regulatory programs, and the
water quality criteria included in water quality standards. A member of
the Advisory Board chairs each subcommittee, and selects temporary members
to serve on these advisory subcommittees as the need arises. As appropriate,
members or representatives of the Advisory Board will sit on relevant
technical committees of the planning staff in order to get first hand
information and provide direct input. Planning staff meetings will be
posted and public representatives will be allowed to attend. In this way
broad-based public interest involvement is structured in the planning
process, as well as other aspects of the water pollution control program.
The Citizens' Advisory Board will submit an annual report on the
Continuing Planning Process, appraising the process and the public's
continued
21
-------
involvement, and this statement will accompany the State Water Quality
Agency's annual planning submission to EPA.
Also, plan elements in State Planning Areas will be presented to
representatives of localities, other governmental agencies and the public
prior1 to formal public hearings. The State's Regional Planning Commissions
will be used frequently to inform private citizens and groups and solicit
privc.te opinions regarding the State's water quality planning and the
State's role in coordinating water quality planning conducted by various
governmental agencies. As conclusions are drawn and alternatives developed,
the public will be asked, through the Planning Commissions, to respond to
these. The response will be recorded and carefully considered when recom-
mende.tions are drafted.
The final draft of the State's Water Quality Management Plan will
be presented at public hearings, prior to the State's formal adoption.
Public comment from these hearings will be summarized and submitted to EPA.
Additional methods for public participation will include public
seminars sponsored jointly by the SWQA and the Regional Planning Commissions
for private individuals and local governments; publication of bi-monthly
reports on the water program, briefing sessions for local groups on planninc
purposes. Topics covered will include planning methodologies and key
choices to be made. The State Water Quality Agency will work with State
Extension Service and State University System to develop water planning
curricula for schools and public information devices, such as films and
booklets for public distribution.
22
-------
V.V. >* «.s5
(Section 130.10(a)(2); 130.16)
This section describes the mechanisms and the process by which
local and areawide contributions are made to State
Water Quality Management Plans,
local governments cooperate with neighboring
affected local governments,
interstate and Federal agencies contribute to
State planning when other State and Federal inter-
ests are involved,
State, Federal and interstate contributions are
made to areawide planning.
Section 130.10(a)(2) of the revised regulations requires the
planning process to include "Adequate intergovernmental input in the
development and implementation of water quality management plans as de-
scribed in Section 130.16." Section 130.16, in addition to general
requirements for intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, requires
that local governments be encouraged to use associations of local govern-
ments, such as Councils of Governments or regional planning commissions,
in the development and implementation of plans.
Also required are one or more policy advisory committees, exist-
ing or new, to advise the State, areawide planning or implementing
agency during development and implementation of plans on broad policy
matters. A majority of these committees' membership shall be represent-
atives of chief elected officials of local governments, unless the
affected local governments agree to a lesser percentage. The policy
advisory committee for designated areawide planning areas shall include
representatives of the State and public and may also include spokes-
persons from Federal agencies, such as Agriculture, Army and Interior
Departments.
The States, with EPA's assistance, are responsible for interstate
cooperation and international cooperation where appropriate.
Intergovernmental planning can be achieved through the input of
many (State, Federal, etc.) agencies to the planning agency and through
various assignments by the planning agency:
23
-------
various planning elements required for State Planning
Areas and designated 208 regions can be performed by
Federal, State, Interstate, local and areawide agen-
cies, working independently but with Policy Advisory
Committee advice. The planning agencies would work
by assignment from the State Planning Agency subject
to the Regional Administrator's approval or as
approved in 208 workplans for designated regions.
The State Planning Agency oversees and integrates the
planning pieces, subject to the Regional Administra-
tor's approval, or
major planning elements can be performed by an inter-
governmental task force and intergovernmental plan-
ning staffs. These intergovernmental elements are
then integrated by the State Planning Agency to form
a complete planning network for the State, or
a combination of (1) and (2) above, with some "sepa-
rate turf" planning with intergovernmental advice,
integrated into an intergovernmental whole, and some
intergovernmental planning staffs.
For a detailed breakdown on "who does what planning," see
exanple, Chart 3.
24
-------
Intergovernmental contributions to planning will be achieved at
the State level through the use of intergovernmental planning staffs and
intergovernmental advisory committees to advise State and areawide plan-
ning agencies. It is important to note here that in general water quality
planning for the State is an intergovernmental effort, in which planning
is conducted by various levels of government, in some instances independ-
ently, in others jointly, but with all levels of government considered
as equals.
The organizational arrangements and procedures to establish inter-
governmental contribution to planning include these:
An Intergovernmental Sediment Control Task Force will
be established under the leadership of the State Water
Quality Agency, consisting of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, its Forest Service and Soil Conservation
Service, State Department of Agriculture, State
Regional Planning Commissions, State Forestry Service,
State Mining Council, Interstate Economic Development
Commission, U.S. Bureau of Mines. The Citizens Clean
Water Advisory Board will establish a sediment sub-
committee to provide private citizens contributions to
Task Force planning. The work of the Sediment Task Force
will be closely coordinated with and will integrate relevant
activity concerning water quality standards revision and
the implementation of the antidegradation policy. This sub-
committed will include representatives of the 1) agriculture,
mining, forestry and construction industries and 2) environ-
mental and conservation groups and 3) soil scientists. The
sediment subcommittee will choose one representative from each
of the above three groups to be full members of the Sediment
Control Task Force and provide the Task Force with the sub-
committee's recommendations. The Task Force will determine
the pollution loads contributed by sediment from farming,
forestry, mining and construction sites, assess water quality
effects, and recommend technical and legal, financial and
other management solutions to the problems on a Statewide
basis. Task Force recommendations will be sent to the Policy
Advisory Committee, considered with appropriate public participa
tion and, if approved, implemented with a phased time schedule.
Task Force planning. This subcommittee will include
representatives of the agriculture, mining, forestry
and construction industries and environmental and con-
servation groups and soil scientists. The Task Force
will determine the pollution loads contributed by
sediment from farming, forestry, mining and construc-
tion sites, assess water quality effects, and recom*
mend technical and legal, financial and other manage-
ment solutions to the problems on a Statewide basis.
continued...
25
-------
For each designated 208 area, an employee of the State
Water Quality Agency will serve half-time on the plan-
ning staff of the State Water Quality Agency and half-
time on the areawide agency planning staff. This per-
son will have the principal responsibility for State
involvement in and management of planning for that
designated agency, as discussed further in #13 - State's
Program to Manage Planning in Areawide Agencies.
Local officials will serve on State Policy Advisory
Committees, one to be established for each of eight
State Planning Areas. These policy advisory committees
will be composed of local elected officials or their
representatives one from each city or county in-
volved and the Executive Director of the Regional
Planning Commission. State, interstate and Federal
agency representatives will also serve on these inter-
governmental advisory committees. (Private citizens
will be represented on the Citizens' Clean Water
Advisory Board, see Item #2). The Policy Advisory
Committees will advise the State Water Quality Agency on
matters of State and local policy in plan formation and
implementation, and on the State's coordination role.
All key planning and implementing alternatives will be
submitted to these committees at the earliest opportunity
for consideration and comments will be incorporated in
those decisions.
Ensuring local intergovernmental cooperation one local
government with its neighboring local governments will
be led by the Regional Planning Commissions and partici-
pated in by the State Water Quality Agency and the State
Planning Office (regarding planning methodology, data
presentation and growth and land use projections). Local/
local cooperation will be achieved by the traditional
means in use by the RPCs: briefing sessions for local
government officials, Commission meetings, circulation to
affected local governments of planning documents and
issue papers at an early stage of planning A-95 review,
and always before the key decisions are made, and through
the mass media.
Attaining interstate cooperation is seen as the responsi-
bility of the state Water Quality Agency in conjunction
with EPA. Prior to adopting water quality management
plans for State boundary waters (either those drafted for
State Planning Agencies or designated areas), the State
Water Quality Agency will circulate the plans to neighbor-
ing States for review and comment, and to the Interstate
Commission on the Smith River Basin and the Interstate
Economic Development Commission.
continued
26
-------
Appropriate Federal agencies will be given an opportunity
to comment on State and areawide WQMPs, in the draft
stage, including the EPA Regional Administrator, Depart-
ments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Army, where appro-
priate.
A-95 review and comment procedures will be applied to
State and Areawide WQMPs, which will promote cooperation
among local governments, between localities and the State,
as well as with Federal and interstate agencies.
27
-------
(Section 130.10(a)(3); Section 131.31 "Relationship to Municipal
Facilities Program," Section 130.33 "Relationship of State and Designated
Areawide Planning Programs," and Section 130.34 "Relationship to Other
Local, State and Federal Planning Programs".)
This part of the State's submission describes the means to coor-
dinate and integrate water quality management plans in five ways:
Water Quality Managemant Plans developed by designated area-
wide agencies need to be integrated with those for State
Planning Areas. The Regulations make the State Planning
Agency ultimately responsible for assuring that Section 208
requirements and all other water quality planning require-
ments are met throughout the State, including designated
planning areas. In order to do this the State Planning
Agency is to provide leadership, support to designated plan-
ning agencies and monitor their progress. Plans produced
by designated agencies are to be incorporated into State
Water Quality Management plans, after review and certifica-
tion.
Water Quality Management Plans need to be coordinated with
water quality planning in adjacent States.
Water Quality Management Plans should be tied with other
resources and developmental planning conducted by State,
local and Federal agencies, such as State and local land
use programs, other federally sponsored or mandated activ-
ities relating to solid waste, safe drinking water, clean
air, coastal zone management, watershed and flood protec-
tion, rural development, recreation, historic preservation,
fish restoration, endangered species, urban studies by the
Corps of Engineers relating to waste water management,
transportation, planning, and housing and community devel-
opment activities.
Compatibility of 201 facilities planning with the State or
areawide Water Quality Management Plan needs to be assured
by State or areawide planning agencies. The 201 plans are
to be considered detailed portions of the Water Quality
Management plans providing details on municipal problems.
30
-------
In the State of Franklin, coordination of water quality planning
with other planning is needed to prevent duplication of planning tasks,
and duplicated or inadequate funding for planning, to ensure compatibility
of growth projections and land use data, policy and program recommenda-
tions, compatibility of planning boundaries and planning organizations.
Coordination of the State Water Quality Management Plan will be a
top priority for the State Water Quality Agency and all other organizations
involved in the Continuing Planning Process.
The planning programs most highly related to water quality and to
receive the most coordination attention are:
Statewide solid waste management planning. Solid waste and
sludge disposal regulation addressed in the Water Quality
Management Plan need to be consistent with the State and
Federal Solid waste management objectives. State solid
waste management plans will be examined for recommended
organizational and technological solutions to water pollu-
tion from solid waste and residual disposal.
State air quality management planning. The relationship
of the WQMP with the State Implementation Plans drafted
pursuant to the Clean Air Act will be examined, particu-
larly as it relates to land use and development decisions,
to ensure compatible control strategies for air and water
pollution. Four of the five proposed 208 regions have
boundaries that are similar to Air Quality Maintenance
Area boundaries. One representative from the State Air
Pollution Control Board will serve on the Advisory Committee
for each designated 208 region. Also one representative
from the State Water Quality Agency will serve on the
Technical Advisory Board for the State Air Pollution Control
Board, providing advice on air quality planning.
Water supply programs, particularly those set up by the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Water supply and water quality
standards will be coordinated, public water intake points
coordinated with waste water discharging facilities,
pollution controls will be designed in part to protect
aquifers and aquifer recharge areas, any subsurface dis-
posal of pollutants will seek not to harm water supplies.
Coastal zone planning and management, sponsored by NOAA
and the State Department of Marine Affairs, which has
produced comprehensive water and related land plans.
Comprehensive local and regional planning, particularly land
use planning, sponsored by the Housing and Urban Development
701 program, local, State, or regionally sponsored compre-
hensive planning carried out by local governments or
continued
-------
regional planning commissions. Land use policies need to
be consistent with land use recommendations of WQMP and
vice versa.
HUD's sewer and water facilities planning for metropolitan/
regional areas.
Soil conservation, forestry and agricultural planning con-
ducted by the State Department of Agriculture and U.S.D.A.
These agencies are also expected to provide substantial
amounts of data on erosion, sediment loads in waterways and
possible nonpoint source control techniques for water
quality planning.
Recreation planning. The State Outdoor Recreation Depart-
ment has prepared a statewide recreation plan including
water-based recreation, and those conclusions and data
will be reviewed for compatibility and inclusion in the
State Water Quality Management Plan.
Transportation planning carried out by the Federal
Highway Administration and also by the Urban Mass
Administration after July, 1976. These agencies will
provide information on the water quality effects of
roadway runoff and the growth impacts of expanded
highway facilities.
Corps of Engineers Urban Studies program has completed the
initial phases of a waste water management study for Reids-
ville, and this information will be used by the areawide
study for that region.
While the State Water Quality Agency will be actively involved in
planning coordination in the day-to-day oversight and management of the
Continuing Planning Process, the key agency for coordination of water
quality planning with other planning conducted within the State is the
State Planning Office. This State has underway a major effort led by the
State Planning Office to coordinate and integrate its many functional and
comprehensive planning responsibilities affecting natural resources and
developmental programs, and water quality plans will be a part of this
process,, The State Planning Office, operating under delegation from the
SWQA, w:.ll standardize planning methodologies used in State Planning
Areas an well as areawide areas, will make economic and demographic pro-
jections in State Planning Areas and resolve conflicts among those projec-
tions xiuide by areawide agencies. It will define land use terms and cate-
gories for use in State Planning Areas and designated areas, and recommend
a standard format for presenting data and conclusions in reports written
by the State, any agencies to which the State has delegated tasks and
areawide planning agencies. The SPO is performing similar planning
standardization tasks for the other planning programs within the State.
continued ....
32
-------
The State Planning Office is also the State's coordinator and link
with the Regional Planning Commissions, which individually or in consortium
are also the designated areawide agencies. These Commissions will also
have major roles in planning coordination, since they perform much of the
planning with which water quality plans must be coordinated. The RPCs
conduct HUD 701 planning, land use planning for regions and for some of
their smaller local governments. They conduct HUD sewer and water facil-
ities planning, transportation, recreation and in some cases solid waste
planning. The RPCs are the HUD certified planning agencies in this State.
With regard to coordinating 201 and comprehensive water quality
plans, where approved 201 and areawide plans are available, these will be
used for such information as:
delineation of service areas
population to be served
treatment levels and treatment types
specification of infiltration/inflow problems and
possible solutions; specification of sludge disposal
of utilization options
cost estimates for collection, treatment, infiltra-
tion/inflow correction and sludge use or disposal
proposed program for financing these measures.
Where 201 and areawide plans do not exist, these calculations will
be made by the areawide agencies if they exist, or by the SWQA or local
governments or the RPCs on delegation of the assignment from the SWQA.
The timing of the municipal facilities element of water quality
management plans will be designed to meet construction priorities in the
State. Although some facilities plans are completed, all facilities
planning presently ongoing or not yet begun will consider and use
information provided by water quality management planning to the fullest
extent possible Five small communities, all under populations of 8,000
need facilities plans. In four of these areas, 208 planning agencies
have been designated and will perform planning. In the fifth, Kleine-
ville in State Planning Area #6, the SWQA will delegate the facilities
planning for the State Planning Area to the Regional Planning Commission #8
Coordination of water quality planning, particularly for control
of sediment pollution, with planning for agriculture, soil conservation,
forestry, and mining and in the coastal zone will be encouraged by the
formation of the Sediment Control Task Force. The members of the inter-
agency, intergovernmental body will take back to their own agencies infor-
mation on water quality problems and solutions and bring to water quality
planning their planning and management expertise.
continued
3 -5
-------
Coordination of planning as well as intergovernmental cooperation
will also be achieved through the A-95 review and comment procedure, to
which, the State WQMP and areawide plans will be submitted. Also the State
will circulate areawide and State WQMPs to neighboring States and adjoin-
ing areawide agencies, when those neighboring jurisdictions are affected
by the proposed plans. Also, the WQMP for this State will be circulated
for review and comment to the Interstate Commission on the Smith River
Basin, which includes the upstream State of Jefferson and the downstream
state of Madison and the Interstate Economic Development Commission.
Coordination .of Water Quality Management plans produced by
designated areawide agencies with those for State Planning Areas will be
the responsibility of the State Water Quality Agency in its certification
of areawide plans and its adoption of the State's WQMP, incorporating area-
wide as well as State produced plans. Also the Regional Planning Commis-
sions will be asked to conduct the A-95 review of the proposed State Plans
including its own comments and those of affected local governments. The
designated areawide agencies will prepare a majority of the State's Water
Quality Management Plan and will be included when the State formulates its
Continuing Planning Process, particularly the State/EPA agreement on plan-
ning detail, planning assignments and schedules. When the delegated
planning tasks are completed, the State will review and certify them and
formally incorporate them into the State Water Quality Management Plan,
adopted by the Board. SWQA staff serving on designated areawide agency
staff will be a main planning coordination mechanism..
34
-------
(Section 130.10(a)(4), "Preparation, adoption and revision of
water quality management plans;" Section 130.10(b)(3), "State review and
certification of plans for designated areawide planning areas;" Section
130.33(c) "Relationship of State and Designated Areawide Planning
Programs;" Section 131.20 "Adoption, certification and submission of
plans;" Section 131.22 "Review and revision of plans.")
In this section the State describes its process for preparing,
adopting and revising WQMAs plans for non-designated areas and the process
by which the State will review and certify plans prepared by designated
areawide planning agencies.
After plans are prepared, the regulations then require several
actions during the review, adoption and revision stages. These require-
ments are designed to promote intergovernmental cooperation in planning
and to ensure that areawide and State WQM plans are compatible and ade-
quate to meet the requirements of the Act.
Section 131.20 requires:
Public participation must exist during development and
prior to formal adoption of State and areawide WQM
plans, including continuing participation in the devel-
opment of the plan, and public meetings or hearings at
key points in the process.
Designated areawide planning agencies are to submit
areawide WQM plans for review and recommendations to
the Governor or his designee, and to chief elected
officials of local governments affected by the plan
prior to formal submission of the plan for the Gover-
nor's certification in order to eliminate any objections
that might delay formal certification at a later date.
Local governments have 30 days for review and comment
prior to formal submission to the Governor, or favorable
recommendation is assumed.
The State planning agency is to submit the State WQM
plan for review and recommendations to appropriate chief
elected officials of affected local units of government
prior to State adoption.
The State is encouraged, but not required to submit the
State and areawide WQM plans to the Regional Administra-
tor for comment prior to formally adopting the plan.
-------
After the Governor and local officials comment on
areawide plans, these plans are submitted formally
to the Governor for his final review and formal
adoption and certification. The Governor certifies
that the plans conform to the State planning process,
including State WQM plans and that the areawide plans
will become a detailed, formally adopted portion of
those WQM plans. The areawide plans must also be
consistent with water quality needs of the area and
conform to State and local legislation, regulations
or other requirements or plans regarding land use and
protection of the environment, except for those cases
where the plan specifically recommends changing such
legislation, regulations or other requirements. The
Governor also certifies that the plans provide ade-
quate basis for selection of management agencies.
When the WQM plan has been developed by an interstate
planning angency, the plan shall be submitted to the
Governor, or his designee, of the State which includes
the largest portion of the designated area's population.
This Governor coordinates the plan review and certifica-
tion process with all other affected States.
The Governor can certify, conditionally certify or not
certify the plan. Then he notifies the Regional
Administrator and the designated areawide planning
agency by letter, indicating the specific revisions
required to receive full certification and the time for
submitting such revisions.
Each State or areawide WQM plan is then adopted as the
official WQM plan of the State. The areawide plans are
formally incorporated into the State WQM plan after the
Governor's certification. The Governor submits the
plan to the Regional Administrator, accompanied by his
or her certification that the plan is the official plan
for the area, that the plan will be implemented and
used for establishing permit conditions, nonpoint source
controls, schedules of compliance and priorities for
awarding grants for construction of municipal treatment
works and that it meets all requirements of the Federal
Act. A summary of public participation in the develop-
ment and adoption of the plan is included.
Water Quality Management plans for designated areawide
planning areas are to be submitted no later than two
years from the date that the planning process began, and
no later than November 1, 1978.
36
-------
Interim outputs are authorized. Portions of the plan
may be adopted, certified, and submitted during the
development of the plan and approved in the same manner
as an entire plan.
At a minimum the State or designated areawide planning
agency shall review and, if necessary, revise each WQM
plan annually. Major revisions are subject to formal
public participation requirements, review, certifica-
tion, adoption and submission requirements above.
Minor changes such as revisions to water quality or
population data can be submitted directly to the
Regional Administrator. Permits which have undergone
formal hearings as a part of the issuance process may
also be adopted without a formal revision process.
For a detailed breakdown of "what planning is to be
undertaken where" see Chart 4.
For detailed scheduling of completion of draft plans,
and the public hearing and approval process, see
Chart 1.
37
-------
Preparation of the State Water Quality Management plan will be
accomplished in the following manner:
The SWQA first identified water quality management informa-
tion gaps and planning resources and set planning priorities
to service existing and expected water quality regulatory
and management programs. This has been accomplished in
order to complete the Continuing Planning Process (CPP)
workplan and the State/EPA level of detail agreement that is
submitted here. Existing water quality plans for State
Planning Areas have been reviewed to determine the adequacy
of data and recommendations in light of the 16 planning
elements required by Part 131 of the regulations. Where
elements are not covered in existing plans, the SWQA has
determined whether or not planning is required, based on
(a) existing and expected future water quality, (b) com-
plexity of waste sources and (c) affected population. Where
we have concluded that planning is required, it is included
in the CPP workplan, and will be completed on or before
July, 1978. Within that time period, certain elements will
be undertaken before others, according to priorities deter-
mined by the above criteria (a), (b), and (c).
All river basins have been divided into Planning Areas
either State Planning Areas where no areawide agency has been
designated (there are eight of these) or Designated Planning
Areas (there are three of these now designated and two more
expected to be designated this fiscal year).
Boundaries for State planning will be by State Planning Areas
except for sediment pollution which will be studied on a
Statewide basis. Also financial, management and regulatory
studies will be focused at the State level.
The designated areas are established similarly established
on a hydrologic planning basis, as well as a political
jurisdictional basis. Areawide planning agencies are either
Regional Planning Commissions or consortiums of two planning
commissions, and in the case of the proposed interstate area-
wide planning agency the planning commissions from our
State will work jointly with the neighboring planning commis-
sion from the next State.
Previous Phase I plans have been prepared in this State by
river basins and much of the data, conclusions and modeling
techniques relate to such a planning perspective. However,
land and water management programs, as well as local regu-
latory and financial programs, are most relevant to local
political boundaries. Thus, we will use basin level data
from Phase I plans as input to Phase II planning in State
and areawide planning areas.
continued
38
-------
Each year the Continuing Planning Process will produce products
that relate to each of the nine State Planning Areas. These products will
be circulated to local governments and affected State and federal agencies
in the planning area through the Policy Advisory Committees. They will be
reviewed by the Citizens' Clean Water Advisory Board and made available
for public review and comment. At least once every six months the SWQA
will conduct a public meeting to discuss the planning program in the
affected area.
When the State Water Quality Agency and its delegated planning
agencies have completed a WQM plan for an area in draft form (on or before
July, 1978) it will be sent to the local governments in the planning area
and local governments that border the planning area, as well as to any
affected State, interstate, or federal agencies for review, including the
EPA Regional Administrator, the proposed plan will be accorded the A-95
review and comment procedures but in every case, the reviewing agency will
be given 30 days time to review and comment. The Regional Planning Com-
mission for the State Planning Area will handle local review, and the State
Planning Office will be responsible for State reviews.
The draft plan will be analyzed by the Citizens' Clean Water
Advisory Board in the same 30-day period.
At the conclusion of this period the State Water Quality Agency
will make the necessary corrections and amendments and formally adopt the
plan as a segment of the State WQM plan. This segment will be sent to the
Regional Administrator as an Interim Output, since the plan for each State
Planning Area will not be complete for nonpoint sources until the Statewide
Sediment Task Force has completed its work. Their conclusions will be an
element of all WQM plans for State Planning Areas as well .as designated
areas.
Areawide planning agencies will also have interim outputs annually
that will be sent to the State Water Quality Agency, State Planning Office,
EPA Regional Administrator and made available to the Policy Advisory
Committees and for the areawide agency, for those adjoining State Planning
Areas and the State's Citizens' Clean Water Advisory Board.
When the designated areawide agencies have completed their WQM
plans in draft form, these will be circulated for comment to the SWQA, the
State Planning Office, the chief elected officials of local governments
affected by the plan and to the EPA Regional Administrator. The plans
will be submitted to the A-95 review process. Reviewing parties will be
given 30 days to review and comment prior to formal submission to the
Governor.
The areawide plans are then revised if necessary and subjected to
formal public hearings in the designated area. (See designated agencies
workplan and public participation statements for details on hearings, etc.)
The plans are then formally submitted to the Governor who will review and
certify, conditionally certify or not certify them in accordance with
Federal criteria. The certified plans are then formally adopted by the
continued
39
-------
SWQA as portions of the State WQM plan. The Governor submits the areawide
and State WQM plans to the Regional Administrator with his certification
that the plan is the official WQM plan for the area and will be implemented
and meet federal requirements.
Water Quality Management plans for designated areas are to be sub-
mitted no later than two years from the date planning has begun and no
later than October 15, 1978, in accordance with the dates identified on
Chart 1.
CHART 1
CONTINUING PLANNING PROGRAM
WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE 2
u
.Jan.-June 1976 July-Dec. 1976 .Jan.-June 1977 July-Dec.1977 .Jan,-June 1978 .July-q Dec.1978
SMITH RIVES BASIN
State Planning Area 11 1_
Des. Planning \rea 62
Des. Planning Vrea 03
State Planning Area 04 1_
Dee. Planning Area 05
JOMES RIVER BASIH
State Planning Area 06 J_
State Planning Area II 1_
BIG MUDDY RIVEt BASD1
State Planning Area 08 1_
Des. Planning Area 19
State Planning 4rea 010 1_
Des. Planning Area 011
W. 1. 2
3. 1. 7
1, 8
W. 2
1.4,5.6
W, 2
1.4.5.6
W.I.3.1.7
1. 8
W, 2
3.1.4.5.6.8 9
.W. 1. 2
3. 1. 7
1. 8
W. 1. 2
3. 1. 7
1. 8
". 1. 2
W. 2
3. 1. 7
1.4.5.6
W, 1. 2
3. 1
W. 2
371,4757678 9
State Planning Area 012 1_
State Planning .Vrea 013 1_
W, 1, 2
3. 1
W. 1. 2
3. 1
W. - Water Quality Standards Review Complete
1. Public hearings or meeting
2. Interim Oul'.puts
3. Plan completed In draft form: Sent to Governor, State, areawide, local, federal,.interstate agencies for
review and public notice published
4. Plan revieved and formally adopted by areawide agencyi WQM plan sent to Governor for certification
5. Governor certifies areawide plan
6. State adopts areawide plan as segment of State'WQM plan
7. State rewrites State WQM plan, and adopts as segment of State WQM plan, sent to Regional Administrator as
interim output
8. State adopts Sediment Task Force element
9. State WQtf plan complete, sent to Regional Administrator
40
-------
41
-------
(Section 130.10(a)(5); Section 131.11(n) "Plan Content, Regula-
tory Programs"; Section 130.32 "Relationship to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; Section 130.31 Relationship to Municipal
Facilities Program.")
The State's submission on its Continuing Planning Process shall
include a description of how regulatory programs identified in approved
Water Quality Management plans will be established and carried out.
Section 131.11(n) requires Water Quality Management plans to
describe existing State/local regulatory programs to be used to carry
out plans, including the regulatory approach, statutory basis or needed
new legislation and administrative and financial capabilities. These
regulatory programs must meet these minimums:
"To the extent practicable, waste treatment management
including point and nonpoint source management shall
be on a Statewide and/or an areawide basis and provide
for the control or abatement of all sources of pollu-
tion ...."9
"Location, modification and construction of any facili-
ties, activities or substantive changes in use of the
lands within the approved planning area, which might
result (in pollution)"10 are to be controlled.
"Any industrial or commercial wastes discharged into
any publicly owned treatment works meet applicable
pretreatment requirements."^
Section 130.32 also affected permits issued under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. No permit under Section 402 of
the Act can be issued for any point source which conflicts with an
approved water quality plan.
Section 130.31 affects grants for the municipal facilities
program. No Step II or Step III grant may be awarded for any treat-
ment works which is in conflict with an approved water quality manage-
ment pLan.
While State and areawide agencies do not know the specific
regulatory recommendations that future WQM plans will contain, they do
know, as a rule, the types of regulatory approaches that are and often
will continue to be used and in some cases specific new regulatory pro-
grams that are being developed. A general statement can also be in-
cluded that legislation will be sought at the State/local level to pro-
vide 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 will be included
in the designation of management agencies when the plan is completed.
9. Section 131.11(n)(3)(i)
10. Section 131.11(n)(3)(ii)
11. Section 131.11(n)(3)(iii)
42
-------
The State Water Pollution Control Agency agrees to request of the
Governor, for recommendation to the General Assembly, the authority and
funds needed to carry out all elements of the plan, including regulatory
programs. While the State's commitment is a general one, since the
contents of the WQM plan are not yet known, it is a firm one to seek the
needed legislation and funding. In general, the existing regulatory
strategy will undoubtedly be used in the future (See #16 on Legal
Authority for specifics of existing statutory authority.) including permits
issued and reviewed every five years, water quality and effluent standards,
user charges, surveillance and monitoring, court action penalties. It is
expected that regulatory related activities of the SWQA will constitute the
majority of operational work, and regulatory staff and budget be the larg-
est for the Agency.
As actions recommended by the plan are authorized, they will become
a part of the State Strategy and the Agency's Annual Program Plan. The
regulatory programs will also be included in the State Program Plan and
State budget request. In this way the recommendations will be incorporated
into the continuing processes for funding, enforcement actions, allocations
of construction grants and other program decisions. For example, the State
enacted a Forest Practices Act last year and regulations pursuant to that
law are now being written by the Department of Forestry, in conjunction
with the State Water Quality Agency and the Air Quality Board. The en-
forcement of this law has been incorporated into the State Strategy and
will undoubtedly be included in the forthcoming WQM plan.
When the plan calls for additional local legislation, funding or
administrative actions to carry out regulatory requirements, the State
Water Quality Agency will request these of the appropriate local governing
bodies.
No permits issued by the State will be in conflict with the ap-
proved WQM plan and no grant for municipal facilities construction will
be awarded which is in conflict with an approved WQM plan.
43
-------
(Section 130.10(b)(1) and (2); Section 130.10)c)(5); and Section
130.17 "Water Quality Standards.")
This section describes how the State planning process will
develop, review and revise water quality standards and develop and imple-
ment a Statewide policy on antidegradation. A schedule of milestones is
to be provided, including proposed'dates for public hearings on the revi-
sions. The schedule is to ensure that water quality standards and the
antidegradation policy will be reviewed and revised in ample time to be
used as a basis for the 1977-1983 management and regulatory decisions.
The !3WQA may request areawide agencies to assist in review and revision
of water quality standards but the responsibility for adjusting appro-
priate water quality standards remains with the State.
Section 130.17, which provides the substantive requirements for
standards, says that the State shall hold public hearings for the review
of standards and adopt needed revisions at least once every three years
and submit these to the Regional Administrator.
During 1976, these standards will be reviewed and revised to
establish use classifications and water quality criteria necessary to
protect public health and achieve, wherever attainable, the national
water quality goal for all waters of the Statewater quality which will
protect fish, shellfish and wildlife propagation and allow recreation in
and 0:1 the water (Section 101(a)(2)).
The EPA antidegradation policy is included in these
regulations to require the State to review their current
antidegradation policies and establish a mechanism,
including a public process, for implementing the antidegradation policy.
The State's antidegradation policy must, at a minimum, protect existing
water quality. Degradation is prohibited except to allow for "justifiable
econoiric or social development" and after full intergovernmental and
public participation, in no event, however, may degradation of water
quality interfere with existing instream water uses. No degradation is
allowed in high quality waters which constitute an "outstanding National
resource, such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges
and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance." Also,
if clean waters are at all degraded the State must apply the "highest
statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point
source:; and feasible management or regulatory programs pursuant to Section
208 of the Act for nonpoint sources, both existing and proposed."
44
-------
Within the next year, the State Water Quality Agency, working
closely with the designated areawide agencies, will complete its reassess:-
ment of water quality standards and antidegradation policy to determine
their adequacy and attainability. This process was begun last year.
Water quality criteria will be assessed for possible inclusion of new ones,
such as heavy metals. Determination will be made whether the existing
criteria adequately protect desired uses. Economic and social costs and
benefit analyses on attaining the water quality standards and meeting the
antidegradation requirement will be made, primarily by the areawide agen-
cies under the leadership of the SWQA. Areawide agencies will recommend to
the State Water Quality Agency any needed changes in water quality stan-
dards or antidegradation policy and its implementation.
Public hearings will be held in each of the Regional Planning
Districts to solicit citizen and local governmental views and recommenda-
tions on the evaluation issues listed above.
The Water Quality Agency will adopt revisions to standards so that
water use designations will be upgraded to meet the 1983 water quality
goals in almost every case. Any exceptions will be justified by natural
background conditions, irretrievable man-induced conditions, or widespread
and severe economic and social impact. If the 1983 goals are not to be
attained, a detailed statement of the Agency's reasoning will be available
to the Regional Administrator.
Public hearings will begin in November, 1976 and final revisions
adopted by December 31, 1976 and submitted to the Regional Administrator.
(See Chart 2) This will provide ample time to affect the 1977-1983
management and regulatory decisions of the States and local governments.
Any changes in the water quality standards will be used to redefine the
goals of the Continuing Planning Process.
Following the initial revision in 1976, the water quality standards
will be formally reviewed every third year, 1979, 1982, etc. including
public hearings in each of the four Regional Planning Districts. In
addition, areawide and State WQM planning outputs, submitted to the State
each year, will be used to reevaluate the standards annually, on a less
formal basis. If the annual review of planning products and assessments
of the CPP or other informational sources make it apparent that revisions
are needed in the three-year interim, revisions preceded by public hear-
ings, will be adopted for specific waterways or specific criteria.
The public participation procedures that apply to the entire State
water quality program will apply to any review of or changes in the anti-
degradation policy and water quality standards.
Implementation of the antidegradation policy will be carried out
by the State and local governmental agencies. If water quality is to be
degraded (without lowering existing water uses), the highest statutory
and regulatory requirements will be applied to new and existing point
sources through the waste water discharge permitting process and new
source performance standards. Also the best management practices will be
continued
45
-------
fprwrn
applied to nonpoint sources in such areas, with the assistance and coopera-
tion of the U.S. and State Departments of Agriculture, Forestry Services
and Bureau of Mines. A requirement, prior to awarding construction grants,
will be satisfying anti-degradation policy requirements. Attainment and
protection of water quality standards will be objectives of the local com-
prehensive land use planning programs, which were required to be carried
out by the last session of the General Assembly.
CHART 2
SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW AND REVISION OF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
January 1976 Areawide Agencies begin review of WQS in their regions
April 1, 1976 CPP description submitted to EPA
I
I
October 1
November' 1
November 8
November 10
November 15
December 15
December 31
Proposed WQS revisions; notice of public hearings
Public hearing Planning District #1, 2
Public hearing Planning District #3, 4
Public hearing Planning District #5, 6
~ Public hearing Planning District #7, 8
Adopt Standards Revisions
Submit WQS revisions to Regional Administrator
December 1979 Revisions of WQS submitted to Regional Administrator
December 1982 Revisions of WQS submitted to Regional Administrator
46
-------
47
-------
(Section 130.10(b)(4) and Section 130.20 "State Strategy,
Contents and Submission").
The State's submission is to include a description of how the
Sta-;e Strategy will be prepared each year. The State Strategy is the
part of the Continuing Planning Process which sets forth, based on
wate>r quality management plans, the general approach to water pollution
control over the next five years. It should include State priorities
on hoth a geographical and a problem area basis. These priorities
should be reflected in terms of resource allocations for the next year
in the State Program Plan. Each year the State Strategy is revised,
adding an additional year at the end, dropping the past year, and
making any needed mid-course corrections based on appropriate public
participation. This is submitted to EPA as part of the Annual State 106
Program Plan submission.
A suggested first step in preparing the State Strategy is to
assess the water quality problems and their causes using the water quality
problems and their causes using the water quality analysis used to prepare
the State's report required under Section 305(b) of the Act and Phase I
planr.ing data bases.
Second, stream segments are ranked by seriousness of pollution
problems. Priorities could be based on severity of existing or antici-
pated pollution, preservation of high quality waters, the size of the
affected population, or other criteria, with the worst problems receiving
attention first.
Next, the State describes its general approach to solving water
pollution problems, estimates the financial resources needed each year to
conduct the major program elements in the States, lists priorities and
schedules for carrying out the needed State program, and briefly summar-
izes the State monitoring strategy.
48
-------
The State Strategy will define State actions over five years that
will be required to attain the goals set in the Continuing Planning Process
based on results of water quality management planning. Existing water
quality data will continue to be gathered and analyzed from monitoring
data, local planning agencies and regional planning commissions, and to a
large extent, from the previous Phase I and 3-c plans.
Each stream segment has been ranked according to the severity of its
pollution problem by the following criteria: degree of violation of water
quality standards, complexity of pollution sources and likely solutions,
and size of affected population.
The State's pollution control program and how it will address the
problems will be described generally. The State will show which basins or
geographic areas have the most serious and immediate pollution problems
and which areas will receive the State's program concentration. The focus
and scheduling of various program elements permits, enforcement, grants,
monitoring, technical assistance, etc. will be shown.
Next, financial, manpower and equipment resources will be matched
with these priorities and schedules. Budget estimates will be tied to the
State's annual program planning/budgeting cycle.
The State's monitoring program will be described and will show the
locations, type of equipment to be used, type of analysis to be applied,
budget and manpower to be used. Goals of the monitoring program will be
water quality assessment and segment classification, waste inventories and
projections and to strengthen water quality standards-setting and enforce-
ment and implementation of the antidegradation policy. It will also be
used to determine maximum daily loads, and identify point source waste
load allocations for SPAs.
Each year the five-year State Strategy will be revised based on
appropriate public participation, including updating it for changes in
pollution needs, program elements and financial resources. This annual
cycle will be based on the annual information and recommendations from
the State and areawide planning. These plans will supply data on
water quality, pollution sources, correction measures required and rela-
tive priority of actions to prevent and control water pollution.
When the State Strategy is reviewed and updated, the Annual Program
Plan required for submission to EPA will be prepared, constituting a one-
year increment of the five-year strategy. This programming process will
occur simultaneously with the State's Program Planning/Budgeting Cycle, so
that State and Federal processes will be integrated. The State Program
Planning categories will be the same as those used by EPA. Thus, during a
specific four-eight weeks period each year, the SWQA will devise its
actions for the coming year, in a way that fits into its five-year strategy
and accomplishes its goals. During this period the SWQA will receive and
review outputs of areawide and other water quality planning agencies, pre-
pare its program plans, strategies and budget for the coming year to
solve the water quality problems by the means called for in the areawide
and State WQM plan.
49
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(2); Section 130.10(c)(7); Section 130.13)
This section provides one or more lists and maps showing proposed
State planning areas, designated areawide planning areas, and areawide
planning areas expected to be designated with a timetable for that desig-
nation. It also includes the listing of agencies that are of will be
designated to conduct planning for areawide planning areas.
Section 130.13 requires the following for designation of areawide
planning areas and agencies:
« The Governor identifies eligible areawide designations.
Designated area commitment to coordinated waste treatment
management system.
Legal authority to enter into coordinated waste water
management.
State has not preempted water quality planning.
Planning agency must be a single representative capable
of developing effective areawide plans.
The timetable limitations are these:
within 60 days, Governor identifies areas eligible for
designation
within 150 days, Governor holds public hearings on
designations
within 150 days, Governor provides Regional Administrator
with information on designated area.
For additional details on the designation process see the "Revised
Area and Agency Designation Handbook", November 1975.
50
-------
State of
Jefferson
State of Madison
Designated Areawide 208 Planning Areas
Proposed Designated Areawide 208 Planning Areas
State Planning Areas
-------
The following are the planning areas and agencies that have been or
will be designated by the Governor of Franklin for areawide planning.
Planning Area #2 Designated June, 1975. Planning Agency is
the Regional Planning Commission #1.
Planning Area #3 Designated May, 1975. Planning Agency is
Regional Planning Commission #2.
Planning Area #9 Designated September, 1975. Planning Agency is
Regional Planning Commission #3.
Planning Area #5 Proposed for designation as an interstate area-
wide planning area. The proposed schedule for
designation is:
December 15, 1975 Governor of Franklin
determines that area is eligible, notifies
local officials (the Governor of neighboring
State of Madison is expected to make similar
determination for area of his State Dec. 20.
January 20 public hearings to be held jointly
by Franklin and Madison in Brighton, Franklin.
April 1, Governor will send needed information
to Regional Administrator.
The proposed planning agency will be the
Brighton/Wilmington Interstate 208 Planning
Consortium. Regional Planning Commission #4
would be the areawide planning agency for this
State.
Prior to November 1976, detailed work plan
completed and planning initiated.
Planning Area #11 Proposed for areawide designation by these
dates:
December 15 Governor determines area is
eligible and notifies local officials.
January 20, 1976, public hearings held in
Lincoln.
March 1, 1976, Governor sends required infor-
mation to Regional Administrator.
Proposed planning agency is Regional Planning
Commission #5.
Prior to November 1976, detailed work plan
completed and planning initiated.
52
-------
53
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(3); Section 130.2(o) "Definitions")
The purpose of this section is to list and show on maps those
waters which the State has determined as being classified as either
"watar quality segment" or "effluent limitation segment".
A "Water quality segment" is one in which "water quality does not
meet applicable water quality standards and/or is not expected to meet
appl:.cable water quality standards even after the application of the
effluent limitations required by Section 301(b)(1)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A) of
the Act, or any segment where adequate water quality data is not available
to otherwise justify classification of such segment as an effluent limita-
tion segment."12
An "effluent limitation segment" is one "where it is known that
water quality is meeting and will continue to meet applicable water qual-
ity is meeting and will continue to meet applicable water quality stan-
dards or where there is adequate demonstration that water quality will
meet .applicable water quality standards after the application of effluent
limit.itions ... "13
During Phase I, State water quality analysis and planning has
concentrated on classifying segments as to water quality, analyzing the
problems and targeting solutions. Attention has focused on the "water
quality limited" segmentsthose in which compliance with the Act's tech-
nology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards is not suffi-
cient to achieve water quality standards.
For such segments, States determine the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which may be added to the segment without violating standr
ards. Target effluent reductions for individual dischargers, including
Federal facilities, are derived from the total loads: These targets may
form tie basis for permits in both Phase I and Phase II.
In preparation for the Phase II program, States will redefine
segments to include the land area relating to each stretch of water.
Classifications will also be reviewed in order to reflect the 1983 water
quality goals and the impact of second phase technology-based require-
ments. The reclassifications will take into account nonpoint source
impacts.
12.
Section 130.2(o)(1).
13.
Section 130.2(o) (2).
54
-------
The effluent guidelines applicable to Phase I and Phase II are
as follows:
Phase I
Publicly owned treatment works Secondary treatment
(POTWs)
Sources other than POTWs Best practicable control
technology currently
available (BPT)
Phase II
POTWs Best practicable waste
treatment technology
(BPWTT)
Sources other than Best available control
POTWs technology economically
achievable (BAT)
55
-------
There are approximately 75 miles of water quality segments in
Franklin, plus seven lakes that fit this classification. These involve 12
segmer.ts listed below:
1. The Smith River from mile 35.4 (the Fraser Paper Company
outfall) to mile 71 (The Emory Company).
2. The Smith River from mile 86.7 (the Warren Chemical Company
outfall) to mile 95 (the Hughes Farm).
3. The Riley River from mile 12.1 to 17.5 (where it joins the
Smith River).
4. The Smith River from mile 178 (the Hughes Knitting Mill
outfall) to mile 189.
5. The Smith River from mile 248 (outfall of Smithton sewage
treatment plant) to 257 (Franklin/Madison State line).
6. Big Muddy River from mile 43 (the Epsham, Inc. outfall) to
mile 59.
7. Big Muddy River mile 64 (the Middleton sewage treatment
plant outfall) to mile 88.
8. Big Muddy River mile 94 (the outfall from Fremont
Corporation) to mile 118.
9. Little Creek mile 3 (outfall from sewage treatment lagoon)
to confluence with the Big Muddy.
10. Elbe Creek mile 0 to confluence with the Big Muddy.
11. Jones River mile 85 (site of the Openhauer Mining Corp.)
to mile 96.
12. Jones River mile 117 (site of the Estes Mining Company) to
mile 129.
In addition the following lakes fit the water quality limited
classification due to their eutrophic condition. They are listed in alpha-
betical order, along with the river basin in which they are located:
continued
56
-------
LAKE
13. Azure Lake
14. Estes Lakes
15. Lincoln Lake
16. Lovejoy Lake
17. Three Mile Pond
18. Tobey Lake
19. Valdez Lake
RIVER BASIN IN WHICH LOCATED
Big Muddy River Basin
Smith River Basin
Big Muddy River Basin
Smith River Basin
Smith River Basin
Jones River Basin
Jones River Basin
These 19 water quality segments are shown on Map 2. The remaining
256 stream segments are classified as "effluent limitation segments".
57
-------
MAP 2
STATE OF FRANKLIN
WATER QUALITY SEGMENTS
The numbers on the map correspond to the numbers in this example.
58
-------
or
(Section 130. 10 (c) (4) ; Section 130.11; Section 131.10 "General
Requirements"; Section 131.11 "Plan Contents.")
In this section the State describes its agreement with the EPA
Regional Administrator governing level of detail and schedule for prepar-
ing State WQM plans, as described in Section 130.11.
Section 130.11 requires that the timing provided by the State/EPA
agreement must ensure compliance with the 1983 national water quality
goal. It should also enable planning integration and set planning prior-
ities consistent with projected planning resources. The scheduling shall
provide that initial State and areawide WQM plans are completed, adopted,
certified and submitted to the Regional Administrator by November 1, 1978.
Water Quality Management plans are to be prepared for all areas
and waters of the State, with the same planning elements being used in
each State and designated areawide planning area. However, the level of
detail can vary according to the water quality problems and management
decisions to be made, ranging from intensive planning to no planning for
particular water quality problems in those planning areas where the State
certifies that no planning is required and the Regional Administrator
agrees. The State may so certify when particular water quality and/or
source control problems do not exist or are not likely to develop within
the 20-year time frame of the plan. Each year the level of detail and
schedule agreement with EPA is reviewed, and revised if necessary. Each
year the State recertifies that no planning is required in certain plan-
ning areas.
The level of detail and timing agreement is the workplan for
State WQM planning. It should be drafted for each approved State Plan-
ning Area and include:
boundaries of planning area and subareas (hydrologic,
political, problem sources, etc.),
level of detail for plan elements or outputs, based on
complexity of problem. State capability, program needs for
information,
planning tasks to be accomplished to produce elements of
the State WQM plan,
planning agency or agencies for State Planning Areas,
59
-------
schedule for completing initial planning products, as
well as long-range schedule, state capability,
immediacy of program needs for information,
lead planning agency responsible for coordinating
planning within planning area.
Ideally, State certifications where no planning is needed would
be E.ddressed for all 16 planning elements for each State Planning Area.
It should include:
the water quality parameters not being exceeded,
sources of pollution which do not require planning,
geographic extent where problems do not exist.
Documentation, such as water quality data, population and employ-
ment projections, hydrologic information, etc. to prove the State's case
should be submitted with the Continuing Planning Process Revision.
The planning elements to be addressed for each State Planning
Area come from Section 131.10(g) which lists the water quality management
planning elements, and Section 131.11 which provides details on each of
theses elements, which are:
( 1) planning boundaries
( 2) water quality assessment and segment classification
( 3) inventories and projections
( 4) nonpoint source assessment
( 5) water quality standards
( 6) total maximum daily loads
( 7) point source load allocations
( 8) municipal waste treatment system needs
( 9) industrial waste treatment system needs
(10) nonpoint source control needs
(11) residual waste control needs; land disposal needs
(12) urban and industrial storm water needs
(13) target abatement dates
(14) regulatory programs
(15) management agencies
(16) environmental, social, economic impact.
Because of the short period of time for the States to revise
their Continuing Planning Process descriptions and uncertainties as to
funds for planning, these first State/EPA agreements on level of detail
and timing may not include all the detailed information listed above.
In th:Ls event, the States can provide the following year additional work-
plan information and a more complete agreement on level of detail and
schedule. Thus, as the CPP workplan becomes more comprehensive, so will
its description submitted to EPA.
60
-------
CHART 3
Water
Quality
Planning
Elements
Sec. 131.10(g);
131.11
(1) Boundaries
(2)
Water Quality
Assessment,
Segment
Classi fication
(3)
Inventories and
Projections
ASSIGNMENT OF PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES
(Who does What)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
State Water Quality Agency Designated Areawide Agencies
- identify SPAs, DAs
- significant dischargers
in SPA
- monitoring stations
- identify where facili-
ties planning needed in
SPAs
- map preparation for
whole state
- identify pollution prob-
lems in SPA
- classify all state
waters based on DAs
Sediment Task Force's
and SPA recommendations;
- set conditions for
boundaries between DAs
in Planning Area #4
- inventory municipal/
industrial sources in
SPA, project wasteloads
for 5 yrs., 20 yrs.
- rank statewide municipal
construction needs; ac-
cept priorities within
DAs as set by designated
agencies; set priorities
in non-designated areas
and SPA
- significant dischargers in
DAs
- identify where 201 plan-
ning needed in DA
identify water pollution
problems in DAs
recommend segment classi-
fication to State
inventory municipal in-
dustrial sources in DAs
and project 5 yr. and 20
yr. wasteloads
rank municipal needs in
own DA
summarize existing land
use in DA
demographic/economic pro-
jections for own 208
areas for 5 yrs., 20 yrs.
Other
(Federal, State, interstate,
areawide, local agencies
delegated jobs by SWQA)
- Sediment Task Force identi-
fies significant erosion
sources
Sediment Task Force nps
runoff problem
Sediment Task Force summar-
izes sediment related land
uses
State Planning Office stan-
dardizes land use defini-
tions and terminology
SPO makes demographic/eco-
nomic projections for SPA;
resolves conflicts among
DA projections; standardi-
zes form for gathering and
presenting data
continued ...
-------
Water
Quality
Planning
Elements
RESPONSIBILE AGENCY
Sec. 131.10(g);
131.11
:tate vvarer Quality Agency Designated Areawide Agencies
(3) (continued)
(4)
Nonpoint Source
(NPS)
Assessment
assess nps and related
water quality in SPAs
except sediment, and
mining runoffs in SPA
#6, #7
(5)
Water Quality
Standards
(6) Total Maximum
Daily Loads
assess nps in DAs with
least attention to sedi-
ment
evaluate existing wqs
Statewide
adopt Statewide revi-
sions to wqs every
three years and infor-
mally review annually
assign total maximum
daily loads to water
quality segments for
point, nonpoint
sources
review wqs for DAs,
particularly economic,
social impact of attain-
ment
recommend changes to SWQA
recommend to SWQA total
max, daily loads for
water quality segments in
DAs
Other
sl, GtctLe, interstate,
areawide, local agencies
delegated jobs by SWQA)
- SPO summarizes existing
land use patterns over next
20 yrs. working with
Regional Planning Commis-
sions.
- Sediment Task Force de-
scribes sediment pollution
sources, water segments
affected and how, serious-
ness from agriculture
silviculture, mine related
sources, construction,
hydrologic modifications
Statewide
- U.S. Bureau of Mines, State
Mining Council and SWQA
assess acid mine drainage
problem in SPA #6, #7
- Sediment Task Force reviews
sediment aspects of wqs and
recommends changes to SWQA
continued
-------
Water
Quality
Planning
Elements
RESPONSIBLE
A G E N C
en
Sec. 131.10(g);
131.11
(7) Point Source
Load
Allocations
(8) Municipal Waste
Treatment Needs
(9) Industrial
Waste Treatment
Needs
(10) Nonpoint Source
Control Needs
State Water Quality Agency Designated Areawide Agencies
Other
(Federal, State, interstate,
areawide, local agencies
delegated jobs by SWQA)
- assign point source load
allocations in SPAs
municipal needs assessed
in SPA
delegated to RPC, Town
of Kleinsville
industrial point source
control heeds in SPA
- nps in SPA
- assign point source load
allocations in DAs to
achieve total maximum
daily loads of point, non-
point sources
- municipal needs in DAs
- industrial needs in DAs
- nps analysis in DAs
- municipal needs planned by
Regional Planning
Commission #8
- Sediment Task Force identi-
fies, evaluates measures to
control sediment from
agriculture, silviculture,
mine-related sources, con-
struction activities, hydro-
logic modifications State-
wide
(11) Residual Waste
Control Needs;
Land Disposal
Needs
residual waste needs in
SPA
residual waste control
needs in DAs
(12) Urban, Indus-
trial Storm
Water
storm water controls in
SPAs;
cost estimates
- storm water and com-
bined sewer overflows
DAs
- cost estimates
continued
-------
RES
O N S I B L E
AGENCY
Sec. 131. 10 (g) ;
(13) Target Abate
ment Dates
(14) Regulatory
Program
cr>
(15) Management
Agencies
(16) Environmental,
State Water Quality Agency Designated Areawi dp agencies
compliance schedules,
target abatement dates
for point, nonpoint
sources in SPAs; for
sediment control State-
wide
describe existing State
regulatory programs;
local regulatory pro-
grams in SPAs
describe needed new
State regulatory pro-
grams ; local regulatory
programs in SPAs
recommend to Governor
State government manage-
ment agencies
recommend local, area-
wide agencies for SPAs
Statewide financing
study for nps control
assess environmental,
social, economic im-
pacts of carrying out
State Water Quality
Management plan; of
carrying out the plan
for individual SPAs
compliance schedules
target abatement dates for
point, nonpoint sources in
DAs
describe existing local
regulatory programs within
DAs
describe needed new local
regulatory programs within
DAs
- recommend local areawide
management agencies for
DAs
- comment on need for State
government management
agencies as well as fed-
eral interstate agencies
- assess environmental,
social, economic impacts
of carrying out areawide
WQMP
Other
(Federal, State, interstate,
areawide, local agencies
Jclc«jcti-ed JOJ3S .by SWQA)
- Sediment Task Force recom-
mends target abatement
dates for sediment control
to SWQA
- Sediment Task Force de-
scribes existing State/
local regulatory programs
for sediment control
- Sediment Task Force de-
scribes needed new State/
local regulatory programs
for sediment control
- Bureau of Mines and State
Mining Council will recom-
mend regulatory solution
to mine drainage to SWQA
- Sediment Task Force recom-
mends management, regula-
tory agencies (State, local,
areawide, interstate,
federal) and financing to
carry out sediment control
elements of State WQMP
- Sediment Task Force assesses
environmental, social, eco-
nomic impact of carrying out
sediment control provisions
SPA = State Planning Area; those not in designated 208 areas.
DA = Designated Area; those areas located in areawide areas designated by Governor.
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(6) and Section 130.12(a))
The description of the State planning process identifies the
Governor's choice of a single State agency responsible for the conduct
and coordination of water quality planning. While the identified State
agency may delegate portions of the State's planning tasks to other
State, Federal, or local agencies, it is ultimately responsible for see-
ing that all required planning is completed in designated and non-
designated areas and for integrating the planning elements for each State
Planning Area and for coordinating areawide and State-drafted plans.
The State agency responsible for the Continuing Planning Process
will be the State water pollution control agency in most states. These
are the agencies that have performed the State's water quality planning
in the past, and can most easily link water quality planning with imple-
mentation. However, in some states the Governor may choose the State
Planning Office to lead the water quality planning with other State plan-
ning activities because that agency may be the State's link with the
regional planning commissions that are also the designated 208 agencies.
If the State Planning Office serves as an arm of the Governor it may be
better able to solicit the cooperation of the State's Agriculture,
Forestry, Housing and Transportation Departments in water quality plan-
ning and implementation, than would the water pollution control agency.
Another organization that may be selected as lead State agency for
water quality planning is a Governor's council on the environment. If
such a council is composed of the secretaries of various State departments,
it may be better able to secure interagency cooperation on water quality
planning and implementation, as well as integrate water quality with other
water and land use programs.
65
-------
The Governor has designated the State Water Quality Agency (SWQA)
as the State agency responsible for the conduct and coordination of water
quality planning. This Agency is administratively located within the
Department of Environmental Protection, which also administers air pollu-
tion, radiation and solid waste management programs for the State.
The SWQA was selected as. lead planner, because it is the lead
State agency for water pollution control and can best insure that water
quality plans are carried out. Its functions include regulation (standards
setting, permit issuance, enforcement, surveillance), financial assistance
to local governments for the construction of waste water collection and
treatment systems (allocation of State and federal funds for this purpose),
technical assistance (assistance to local governments and industries in
selection of waste water control techniques and manpower training), plan-
ning (policy and program planning and resource planning).
The SWQA budget for the current fiscal year is
$1,973,000 (State funds)
1,070,000 (Federal program grant)
$3,043,000 Total FY 1976 budget
Staff size is approximately 213.
66
-------
67
-------
,331 ^
(Section 130.10(c)(8)
In this part, the State describes the policies and procedures it
will use to oversee the water quality planning conducted by designated
areawide planning agencies. Such oversight is intended to build inter-
governmental planning within designated areas, as well as to ensure that
complete areawide plans can be smoothly integrated with plans prepared
for State Planning Areas to form the State Water Quality Management plan.
The State Planning Agency is, ultimately, responsible for planning every-
where in the State, and if an areawide agency fails to produce its
required elements, the State Planning Agency must perform such planning.
The State's management of areawide planning includes the monitor-
ing of progress and accomplishment of key milestones specified in the
areawide agency's approved workplans.
68
-------
This State believes it is the State's role to support and provide
coordination and guidance for designated planning areas. However, it is
not the State's intention to alter existing workplans or add new require-
ments to those already agreed upon by EPA, the designated planning agency
and the State.
The State Water Quality Agency will be the lead agency and holds
ultimate responsibility for all WQM planning in the State including
areawide planning with the active support and assistance of the State
Planning Office. The following methods will be used to provide oversight
and intergovernmental cooperation in areawide planning.
State Planning Office will formulate guidelines on
data format, growth projections and presentation,
etc. SWQA will provide guidelines on review proce-
dures and other aspects that need to be standardized
with State planning and from areawide agency to area-
wide agency.
Best Management Practices will be defined by the SWQA
working in conjunction with designated areawide agen-
cies, the State, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Bureau of Mines, and other relevant agencies, which
will then be used in designated areas for nonpoint
source planning.
One employee of the SWQA will spend half-time on the
planning staff of one areawide planning agency and
half-time in either a regional office or headquarters
of the SWQA. This person will be responsible for
State/local coordination and intergovernmental plan-
ning and will handle State review and approval of the
areawide plan for his or her area.
Each areawide and State Planning Agency will produce
annual planning outputs which will be reviewed by the
SWQA. The State will also review and comment on
grant applications, workplans and interim progress
reports that go to EPA.
69
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(9); Section 130.14(a))
In this section, the State lists the agencies, addresses and
names of the directors who have been delegated planning responsibilities
for State Planning Areas. The Agency's geographical and planning juris-
diction is also included. These agencies may be other State, Federal,
local or interstate agencies, and the regulations particularly encourage
delegations to Federal agencies where those agencies express a willingness
to accept delegation. Local elected officials for affected areas are to
be consulted prior to these State delegations.
If delegations are made to other than the State water pollution
control agency, evidence from the agency is required to show that it
accepts the delegation and can meet the time schedules and develop re-
quired portions of the plan.
Additional delegations can be made from time to time.
70
-------
Agencies are chosen to perform water quality planning for State
Planning Areas because of available expertise and existing jurisdictional
authority to do such planning. This is intended to avoid planning duplica-
tion and make maximum use of existing knowledge and organizations. Another
consideration is the expected involvement of the delegated agency in plan
implementation. The SWQA consulted with the agencies listed below and
the Executive Office of the Governor and then notified the agencies of
delegation of planning responsibilities to these agencies. Letters of
understanding were signed showing that the agency accepts the delegation
and agrees to meet required deadlines. All these agreements have not yet
been signed. When they are, copies will be sent to the Regional Administra-
tion. (For additional information on planning tasks delegated see Submitted
Items #3, Intergovernmental Contributions and #4 Planning Coordination.)
1. State Planning Office
121 East Broad
Easton, Franklin 24112
William Reynolds, Executive Director
Geographical jurisdiction: Statewide
Planning jurisdiction: Planning coordinator for State
2. Each of the 8 Regional Planning Commissions which
collectively cover the State.
Division of Planning Districts
State Planning Office
121 East Broad
Easton, Franklin 24112
Stanley Kidwell, Director
Geographical jurisdiction: within State drawn planning
boundaries
Planning jurisdiction: water quality, land use,
facilities planning
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Soil
Conservation Service, A.S.C.S.
Washington, D. C.
(delegation not completed)
4. U.S. Bureau of Mines
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.
(delegation not completed)
5. State Mining Council
Department of Natural Resources
1818 17th Street
Easton, Esperanza 24112
Michael Brady, Executive Secretary
Geographical jurisdiction: Statewide
Planning jurisdiction: will plan for acid mine drainage
control in SPAs #6, #7 and sediment control Statewide
continued
71
-------
6. State Forestry Service
Department of Natural Resources
2436 Bradley Boulevard
Easton, Esperanza 24112
Robert Kirby, Director
Geographical jurisdiction: Statewide
Planning jurisdiction: will serve on State Sediment
Task Force
7. Interstate Economic Development Commission
Amory Building
1010 Madison
Middletown, Urd
Martha Davis, Executive Secretary
Geographical jurisdiction: Jefferson, Madison, Franklin
Planning jurisdiction: will serve on Sediment
Control Task Force
72
-------
73
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(10); Section 130.16(c))
The description of the State's Continuing Planning Process is to
include a listing of proposed representatives on the policy advisory
comirittee(s) established in accordance with Section 130.16(c) for each
approved planning area.
Section 130.16(c) requires significant contributions from local,
State, interstate and Federal agencies. As a minimum one or more policy
advisory committees must be established to advise planning and implement-
ing agencies on plan development and execution. Existing advisory
comirittees are preferred, but the policy advisory committees must be
composed at least of a majority of representatives of chief elected offi-
cials of local units of government. If a State wishes to have less than
a majority of local governmental representatives, there must be no sub-
stantial disagreement with such a move from the affected local jurisdic-
tions, and the Regional Administrator must agree.
The list of committee members to be submitted should include the
name of the organization or local jurisdiction that the official will
represent, but does not necessarily need to include the person's name,
if selections have not been completed.
74
-------
Policy Advisory Committees to be established for each State
Planning Area in Franklin will be important organizations to secure
intergovernmental contributions to State water quality planning and imple-
mentation. Whereas the Citizens' Clean Water Advisory Board solicits
participation from the private citizens of the State, the Policy Advisory
Committees structure the participation of interested local, federal, inter-
state areawide and other State agencies in the drafting and implementation
of WQM plans. The Citizens' Board is a Statewide organization, while a
Policy Committee is structured around State planning areas. Previously,
the Citizens' Clean Water Advisory Board included local governmental offi-
cials and representatives of the Regional Planning Commissions. These
representatives have now been taken off the Citizens' Board and placed on
the new Policy Advisory Committees. One representative is selected by
the chief elected official of each county and incorporated municipality in
the planning area. The SWQA has encouraged the local officials themselves
to participate. The Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commis-
sion is included and representatives of other State and Federal agencies,
varying'with the pollution problems of the area. In only one planning
area, #4, do local elected representatives not constitute a majority of
the membership of the Policy Advisory Committees. In this area only two
local governments are involved and several Federal and State agencies can
usefully participate in this planning. The chief elected official of
each affected local government has signed an agreement to a lesser than
majority membership and these signed statements are enclosed.
Policy Advisory Committees for the following State Planning Areas
will have the described membership, which has been chosen by the State
Water Quality Agency. If the person has actually been selected the name
is included.
POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES
State
Planning
Area Membership of Planning Advisory Committee Names
Area #1 Adams County-:Chairman, Board of Supervisors/Sam Brown
Jefferson County:Chairman, Board of Super-
visors /Adam Smith
Madison County:Chairman, Board of Super-
visors /Martha Helm
Lincoln County:Chairman, Board of Super-
visors /Roger Arenda
Hoover County:Chairman, Board of Super-
visors /Herbert Omega
City of Martinsville: Mayor /Tom Jones
City of Jamestown: Mayor /William Rogers
Executive Director, Regional Planning
Commission #7 /William Martin
U.S.D.A.: Soil Conservation Service /Not selected
State Department of Agriculture /Not selected
Interstate Commission on the Smith River
Basin
continued .,
75
-------
State
Planning
Area Membership of Planning Advisory Committee
Names
Area #1
(cont'd)
Area #4
Area #6
Area #7
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (federal
land management agency in the area) /Not Selected
State Planning Office /Kirsten Lindquist
Martinsville Chamber of Commerce /Jim Jones
Franklin Environmental Coalition /Not Selected
Green County:Chairman, Board of Supervisors/Not Selected
Montgomery County:Chairman, Board of
Supervisors
Executive Director, Regional Planning
Commission #2
State Water Resources Department
State Planning Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Urban
Studies Program
State Air Pollution Control Board
Franklin Environmental Coalition
/William Wiley
/Evelyn Heim
/Not Selected
/Kirsten Lindquist
/Not Selected
/Robert Bins
/Mary Billings
Virginia County:Chairman, Board of Super-
visors /Not Selected
Black County /Estes White
Bath County: Chairman, Board of Supervisors/Ann Winn
City of Greene, Mayor
City of Floyd, Mayor
Executive Director, Regional Planning
Commission #8
State Mining Council
U.S. Bureau of Mines
State Planning Office
Floyd-Greene Chamber of Commerce
Franklin Environmental Coalition
Rockbridge County?Chairman, Board of
Supervisors
Falmouth County:Member, Board of Super-
visors
Blue River County:Member, Board of
Supervisors
Pinot County:Chairman, Board of Supervisors/Rosco Drammond
Executive Director, Regional Planning
Commission #8
/George Bassett
/Eleanor Basso
/Evelyn Heim
/Melvin Dougle
/Lucas Lanier
/Kirsten Lindquist
_/Bill Tate
/Mary Billings
/Leo Manimoco
/Rocky Miomi
/Not Selected
U.S. Department of Air Force (land manage-
ment agency)
State Air Pollution Control Board
Franklin Environmental Coalition
/Ralph Golden
/Not Selected
/Robert Bins
/Bill Jones
Area #9 ETC.
Area #11 ETC.
Area #12 ETC.
Area #13 and so forth.
76
-------
(Section 130.10(c)(11).
A statement must be submitted that the State and local govern-
ments either have legal authority to prepare, adopt and implement State
water quality management plans or that such authority will be sought.
EUUNE
The State Water Quality Agency is authorized by Section 20.1 - 44
of the General Statutes of Concordia to conduct comprehensive water
quality planning as required by Sections 130 and 131 of the federal regula-
tions. Section 20.1 gives the Agency general authority to protect and
promote the water quality of the State and to administer and enforce the
Chapter. This authority gives the Agency the powers to perform many
actions that the water quality plans will undoubtedly require, including
issuing certificates, and special orders, adopting water quality standards,
rules and regulations, issuing permits, awarding grants to local govern-
ments, conducting manpower training and extending technical assistance and
other policies and programs for effective areawide or basin-wide water
quality control and management.
The enclosed letter from the Attorney General certifies that such
authority exists. A copy of the relevant sections from the General
Statutes is enclosed.
It is the policy of the State Water Quality Agency to develop all
water quality management plans to conform with Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, regulations written pursuant to this law
and other applicable Federal Acts. If the water quality plans call for
State actions that are not currently authorized, the State Water Quality
Agency will request the Governor to ask for such authority from the
General Assembly. If additional local authority is required, the State
Water Quality Agency will identify this need and request appropriate
authorization from the local governing bodies.
For example, if the Sediment Control Task Force were to recommend
a State law requiring sediment control ordinances to be adopted by and
enforced by counties, then the Water Quality Agency would recommend such
a new State law to the Governor for his recommendation to the General
Assembly, during the next session.
77
-------
CHART 4
PLANNING DETAILS, PLANNING PRIORITIES, SCHEDULE
(How much planning, where, when)
This agreement on level of detail and schedule for planning is
included here, and on Charts 1 and 2.
Level of Detail
The level of planning is described here for each of the eight State
Planning Areas. The Planning Area numbers correspond to the numbers on
Map 1. Each of the 16 planning elements (from Section 131,10) is addressed
for each area and will be categorized either as "on workplan" for planning
and inclusion on initial "State Water Quality Management Plan," or "planning
completed, or "State Certifies that No Planning Required." This last cate-
gory includes elements that are not considered to present water pollution
problems; within the next 20 years, or the solutions to an existing or ex-
pected water pollution problem is not complex and will be golved by existing
regulatory"or management programs. For example, water quality standards are
not beir.g met on the" upper Smith River in Planning Area #1, because of the
locatior, there of a paper mill, the only major point source discharging in
that stream segment. However, this mill is on a compliance schedule includ-
ed in an existing NPDES permit and is expected to be in compliance within
the next 18 months. Thus, no planning is required for point sources in that
area.
continued
78
-------
STATE PLANNING AREA
Smith
River
Basin
Area #1
LEVEL OF DETAIL
This is a rural area, with one paper mill. Major
unidentified pollution problem from farms and forest
runoffs. SWQA is lead" planning agency; Sediment Task
Force will have major role. Status of planning ele-
ments (Sec. 131.10) :
(1) Point source discharges, monitoring stations, and
facility planning needs identified in existing
basin plans. Nonpoint sources, particularly agri-
cultural runoffs, will be studied by Sediment Task
Force and SWQA.
(2) Sediment classification completed and water quality
assessment completed; see 1975 State Strategy.
(3) Inventories of the municipal/industrial point
sources and waste load projections completed, see
basin plan. Municipal construction priorities
completed, see 1975 State Strategy. Existing and
projected land use patterns in this rural region
will be described by the Sediment Task Force.
(4) Nonpoint source assessment has a high planning
priority. Principally, the responsibility of
Sediment Task Force.
(5) Water quality standards are being reviewed State-
wide by the SWQA; Sediment Task Force will recom-
mend on adequacy of sedimentation criterion.
(6) Total maximum daily loads need not be assigned
no water quality sediments in this region.
(7) Point source loads completed, see 1975 State
Strategy and basin plan.
(8) Municipal waste treatment needs do not require
planning. Population and economic projections
indicate no urban development likely.
(9) Industrial waste treatment needs completed, see
basin plan and 1975 State Strategy. Additional
industrial treatment planning not required since
no additional industrial development projected for
this area in twenty year planning period.
continued ....
-------
STATE PLANNING AREA
LEVEL OF DETAIL
Area ft!
(cont'd)
Area #2
(10) Nonpoint source control needs has high planning
priority; sediment task force will plan for sedi-
ment; other nonpoint problems planned by SWQA.
(11) Residual waste control needs do not require plan-
ning, since no municipal plants exist or are
projected for this region. Existing industrial
residues will be controlled under existing NPDES
permit, additional industrial development not
projected.
(12) Urban/industrial storm water does not require
planning, since there are no major urban/indus-
trial concentrations in this region.
(13) Target abatement dates will be recommended by
Sediment Task Force for sediment control. Target
abatement date for point sources, one paper mill,
completed; see NPDES permit.
(14) Regulatory programs will be described Statewide
by SWQA and by Sediment Task Force for sediment
control. Sediment task force will also recommend
new regulatory measures, including land use regu-
lations, if appropriate. SWQA also will conduct
Statewide study of other water quality regulatory
programs.
(15) SWQA will plan for and recommend management agen-
cies required to carry out the plan in this
region. Sediment Task Force will recommend man-
agement agencies for sediment control.
(16) Environmental, social, economic impact of plan in
this area will be assessed primarily by Sediment
Task Force for sediment, the major unplanned
pollution problem in this region. SWQA will
assess impact of State Water Quality Management
plan for the entire State, including this plan-
ning area.
Designated areawide planning area. See EPA-approved
workplan. For those tasks performed by SWQA or other
agencies see Chart 3.
79
continued
-------
STATE PLANNING AREA
Smith
River
Basin LEVEL OF DETAIL
Area #3 Etc.
Area #4 Etc.
Area #5 Etc.
Area #6 Etc.
Area #7 Etc.
Area #8 Etc.
Area #9 Etc.
Area #10 Etc.
Area #11 Etc.
Area #12 Etc.
Area #13 Etc.
In addition to the planning elements developed on a decentralized
basis for individual State Planning Areas, the following planning activities
are conducted by the State on a Statewide basis:
analysis and revision of water quality standards
Statewide regulatory planning to examine the State's
regulatory program needs and the possibility of addi-
tional regulatory authority or requirements for area-
wide or local agencies; streamline enforcement procedures.
a Statewide study of financing needs and methods to secure
additional funds for operations within waste treatment
management agencies and for continuing planning agencies
establishment and management of the Sediment Control Task
Force
preparation of the State Strategy, annual program plan
management of planning within designated areas
formulate construction grant priorities Statewide among
DAs and SPAs
whole river basin modeling.
continued
-------
Priorities
The State's top priorities within the water quality planning program
are:
review and revision of water quality standards
nonpoint source analysis in State planning areas,
particularly in SPA #1, #6, #7, #13
complete point source analysis in SPA #13
acid mine drainage control in SPAs #6, #7
set boundary conditions between designated planning
areas #3 and proposed designated planning area #5
coordinate planning, standardize planning methodology,
growth projections, planning boundaries, land use
definitions (delegated to SPO)
control of eutrophications in "water quality" classi-
fied lakes in SPA #6, #7, #13
municipal facilities plans (201 plans) for five areas
(four in designated areas, one delegated to RFC)
sediment control analysis Statewide
Statewide regulatory analysis, and regulatory program
management.
Schedule
Within FY 1976, the SWQA expects to perform these planning tasks:
complete point source analysis in SPA by July, 1976
complete 208 designations for planning areas #5, #11
review and revise where necessary all water quality standards
complete State planning agency delegations; sign
agreements
complete appointments to Policy Advisory Committees
hold public hearings in each of SPAs
establish management programs for areawide planning
complete computerization of water quality data
establish Sediment Control Task Force and assess
sediment loads and water quality effects.
For a schedule of completion and submission of water quality plans
to meet the requirements of Part 131, see Chart 1. This includes milestones,
public hearing schedule for SPAs (areawide agencies will have their own
public hearing and meeting schedules). As the schedule shows, Planning
Area #4 will be completed first, to establish boundary conditions for desig-
nated planning areas #3 and #5. Several area's plans will be completed
during 1977, but will not be considered final in terms of the Part 131 regu-
lations until the data, conclusions and recommendations are issued by the
Sediment Control Task Force in July, 1978. Consequently, the plans for SPAs
will be submitted to the Regional Administrator as interim outputs. When
the sediment control element is completed and attached, the plans will be
considered final and resubmitted.
It should also be noted that each year from September 15 to
October 15, the State WQA and designated agencies and other planners will
produce planning products, which are called interim outputs. These will be
submitted each year to the Regional Administrator.
81
------- |