DRAFT GUIDELINES
             FOR
    STATE  AND  AREAWIDE
WATER QUALITY  fTlANAGEmENT
   PROGRAfTl DEYELOPfTlENT
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        WASHINGTON, D.C. 2O46O
           FEBRUARY 1976

-------
                                                               15020
                     DRAFT GUIDELINES

                           for

STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                        FEBRUARY 1976

-------
                          FOREWORD
     Final regulations dealing with the State continuing planning
process policies and procedures (40 CFR 130)  and the preparation
of State and designated areawide water quality management plans
(40 CFR 131) were published in the Federal  Register on November  28,
1975.  Regulations for obtaining grants for planning (40 CFR Part 35
Subpart A) were also published on November 28.

     These regulations require that the States assume responsibility
for preparation of water quality management plans for the entire
State—directly in nondesignated areas and indirectly in designated
areas through coordination with areawide agencies.   In addition,
the regulations set forth the required elements which State and
designated areawide agencies are to include in their water quality
management programs.

     The guidelines are intended to assist State and designated
areawide agencies in developing implementable water quality
management programs consistent with the requirements set forth
in the regulations.  While it is not possible for EPA to provide
answers to all the water quality problems that should be resolved,
these guidelines describe the overall factors which should be
taken into account and provide a framework for agencies to use in
developing their water quality management programs.

     This draft is scheduled to be revised as appropriate and
published as final during the summer of 1976.  Any comments or
suggested revisions should be addressed to the Planning Assistance
and Policy Branch, Water Planning Division (WH-554), Office of
Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental  Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
                                 Mark A, Plsano
                                    Di rector
                             Water. Planning Division

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.    Introduction
     1.1  Purpose
     1.2  Applicability
     1.3  Timing
     1.4  Objectives
     1.5  Output Requirements
     1.6  Overview

2.    Continuing Planning Process Development and Approval
     2.1  Purpose
     2.2  Major Stages
     2.3  Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements

3.    State Water Quality Management Plan Development
     3.1  Scope and Purpose
     3.2  Program Objectives
     3.3  Program Content
     3.4  Planning Criteria
     3.5  Planning Sequence
     3.6  Technical Planning
     3.7  Management Planning
     3.8  Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection
     3.9  Plan Outputs
     3.10 Submission Procedures

4.    Public Participation
     4.1  Introduction
     4.2  Public Participation Program Development
    •4.3  A Model Program for Public Involvement
     4.4  Institutional Alternatives for Representation of
          the General Public
     4.5  Program Evaluation
     4.6  Advisory Committee

5.    Water Ouality Standards Revision

6,    Land Use Considerations
     6.1  Introduction
     6.2  Develop Area Subplans through Land Use Analysis

7.    Nonpoint Source Management Considerations
     7.1  Introduction
     7.2  Statutory Requirements and EPA Policy
     7.3  Planning Methods for Selection of Best Management
          Practices

-------
                                 -2-
 8.    Point Sources Considerations
      8.1   Introduction
      8.2   Planning Approach  for Point Sources
      8.3   Municipal  Wastewater Facilities
      8.4   Other Point Sources
      8.5   Combined Sewer Discharges
      8.6   Industrial  Wastewater
      8.7   Development of Alternative Subplans

 9.    Management Responsibilities and Institutional  Arrangements
      9.1   Introduction
      9.2   General  Management Responsibilities
      9.3   Regulatory Program
      9.4   Waste Treatment Program
      9.5   Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation

10.    Financial  Arrangements
      10.1  Introduction
      10.2  Requirements of the  Act
      10.3  Development of Financial  Plans
      10.4  Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation

11.    Cost  Assessment Considerations
      11.1  Introduction
      11.2  Basic Concepts in  Estimating Costs
      11.3  Specific Cost Questions
      11.4  Generalized Cost Estimation

12.    Techniques for Coordination
      12.1  Introduction
      12.2  Coordination Techniques

13.    Environmental, Social,  and Economic Impact Evaluation
      13.1  Purpose
      13.2  Environmental, Social, and Economic  Impact
           Evaluation Process
      13.3  Environmental Effects of Selected Plan

14.    Comparison of Alternatives and Selection  of Plan
      14.1  Purpose
      14.2  The Plan Selection Process

 Appendices

 Guidelines Supplements:
 No. 1.  Best Management Practices for Nonpoint Sources

-------
                              CHAPTER 1

                            INTRODUCTION
1.1  Purpose
     The purpose of these guidelines is to assist the States in setting
up a management program and institutional arrangements to integrate
water quality and other resource management decisions.  The central
purpose of this management program is the development and implementation
of State Water Quality Management Plans so that the longer range goals
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 can be
met.  To achieve these goals, it will be necessary to develop a water
quality management process at the State and local level  that assures
continuous planning for and implementation of pollution  control measures.
These guidelines present a suggested framework for developing water
quality management plans.  The management plans should be directed to
meet two principal mandates of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972:  (1) the determination of effluent limitations
needed to meet applicable water quality standards including the requirement
to at least maintain existing water quality (Section 303); and (2)
development of State and areawide management programs to implement abate-
ment measures for all pollutant sources (Section 208).

1.2  Applicability

     These guidelines are directed toward State agencies responsible for
developing a continuing planning process and State or areawide agencies*
responsible for developing State Water Quality Management Plans.  Since
the States may delegate their responsibilities to local, regional, sub-
state, interstate, and federal agencies to develop and implement part of
their water programs, these guidelines also apply to these other governmental
entities.

1.3  Timing

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

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

     While Phase II planning is a logical outgrowth of existing State
Water Quality Management Plans, the long-term goals to be achieved
through Phase II plans and the complexity of resolving pollution problems
from both point and nonpoint sources may require a State to amend its
existing management program to ensure proper coordination among the
various components of its water program.  Decisions regarding organizational
responsibility for completing Phase II Plans should be contained in the
State/EPA Agreement (S130.ll) including the proposed designation of
areawide planning agencies to undertake certain elements of Phase II
Plans.  An even greater need may exist to consider how the State's
management program for water quality can be complemented by and support
other resource management programs in the State.  In addition to organiza-
tional and program management revisions to the State's continuing planning
process, the State Water Quality Management Plans themselves may require
substantial changes to meet the longer term goals of the Act and to
develop abatement programs for all pollutant sources.

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


     -  January 27, 1976



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

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

Continuing planning process
revisions submitted to Regional
Administrator (by this date
Governors should have indicated
final determination of areas to
be designated under Section
208(a)(2)-(4))

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

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

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

     -  November 1, 1978             —       Governors designate management
                                              agencies to implement the plans

1.4  Objectives

     The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
(Section 101(a)).  To achieve this objective, "it is the national goal
that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
provides for recreation Inand on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983"
(Section 101(a)(2)).  To enable meeting the Act's objectives, "1t is the
national policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes
be developed and Implemented to assure adequate control of sources of
pollutants in each State" (Section 101(a)(5)).

     The objective of the State's continuing planning process is to
establish a management program and arrive at implementation decisions
contained in State Water Quality Management Plans and other plans prepared
pursuant to the Act to meet the 1983 water quality goal, wherever
attainable.

1.5  Output Requirements

     The required outputs of the State continuing planning process are
summarized in 40 CFR §130.10(a)-(c).  Guidance on how to develop a con-
tinuing planning process to meet these requirements is presented in
Chapter 2.

     The required outputs of State Water Quality Management Plans are
stated in Part 131.ll(a)-(p).  An interpretation of specific outputs
that might be needed to meet these requirements 1s found in Chapter 3.
The States and other agencies carrying out planning responsibilities
pursuant to Parts 130 and 131 are encouraged to use whatever planning
procedures best suit their needs.  The planning procedures discussed in
Chapters 3 through 14 restate the requirements of Parts 130 and 131  and
provide some possible approaches for developing State Water Quality
Management Plans.


                                 1-3

-------
1.6  Overview of the Continuing Planning Process and State Water Quality
     Management PI an Development

     The following is a summary (with simplified examples) of how the
State might develop its continuing planning process and Water Quality
Management Program:

     A.  Continuing Planning Process

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

         1.  Process Design

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

             Example:  The Governor has designated the State water quality
         agency to be responsible for the State's continuing planning
         process.   The State water quality agency has begun to array a
         description of the existing water program, its elements, and
         their relationships against a listing of changes needed to meet
         the revised requirements for a continuing planning process.  The
         State agency has separated its process design into the following
         functional headings:  inputs to the process (including existing
         programs related to water quality, public participation, and
         intergovernmental input); development of a State Strategy to
         meet Phase II requirements; development of a State/EPA Agreement
         (including areawide planning area designation and planning delega-
         tions); preparation of water quality management plans; and revision
         of standards.  The State agency has assigned personnel to further
         develop each of these components of the process.
                                   1-4

-------
2.  Define Inputs to the Process

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

    Example;  The State has first classified its water program
into the following categories:   (1) program management, (2) stand-
ards setting, (3) plan development - analytic phase  (this refers
to water quality analyses and setting of effluent limits to meet
standards), and  (4) plan implementation mechanisms (these would
include Section 402 permits, detailed facility planning and
construction grants, and regulatory programs and implementing
agencies required by Section 208).  The interrelation of these
aspects of the State's water program has been defined.  The
State Water Quality Management Plan provides the basic framework
for setting water quality goals  and making decisions which are
implemented through the permit program, and provides design
parameters for further facility  planning and construction grants.

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

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

     In order to seek  involvement of  the  public  as a  whole  in  its
water  program,  the  State has  developed a public  participation
 program which consists  of  seminars and meetings  on  the State's
 overall management  program and  more  extensive  interaction  with
 the  public  in each  area in  which water quality  management  plans
 are  developed.
                           1-5

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

3.  State Strategy

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

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

4.  Preparation of State/EPA Agreement

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

    Example;  The State has already designated three urban areas
for areawide planning.   However, it was  necessary in the State/
EPA Agreement to spell  out a more precise division of responsi-
bilities for monitoring, wasteload allocation development and
review by the State, coordination with further facility planning,
and many other planning relationships.  The State proposes to
designate two more areas for areawide planning and has indicated in
the State/EPA Agreement the planning tasks that would be carried
out by the State and designated agencies in such areas.  The State
has also indicated the planning tasks to be carried out by the
State water quality agency with the cooperation of other State and
Federal agencies.
                          1-6

-------
5.  Revision of Standards

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

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

6.  Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs

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

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

7.  Planning Process Review and Revision

    States are required to review their continuing planning process
annually and make revisions 1f necessary.
                           1-7

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

B.  State Water Quality Management Program Development

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

    1.  Identify Problems In Meeting 1983 Goals of the Act

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

        Example;  To meet the 1983 goals of water suitable for
    fishing and swimming may require high levels of abatement for
    municipal and industrial point sources as well as nonpoint
    sources.  Municipal and industrial point sources may present
    the worst problem under low flow stream conditions.  It may be
    necessary to provide higher than national base level treatment
    for these sources in order to meet water quality standards.  In
    the process of upgrading treatment for existing municipal
    sewage treatment plants and constructing new plants, the location
    of discharge points is an important variable affecting water
    quality.  Treatment plant collection systems also influence
    where development will occur, which affects nonpoint source
    runoff.  Finally, the design of treatment systems will need to
    include options for utilizing or disposing of the residual by-
    product of the treatment process.

        Even after the point source problem has been solved, it is
    likely that rainfall-related sources of pollution such as urban
    runoff may cause severe stress on aquatic life due to the heavy
    metals and toxic substances washed into the stream.
                              1-8

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

2.  Identify Constraints and Priorities

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

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

3.   Identify Possible Solutions to Problems

    All reasonable regulatory and management control methods
to reduce pollution to an acceptable level should be identified.
                          1-9

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

4.  Develop Alternative Plans to Meet Statutory Requirements

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

    Example;  The technical alternatives for municipal and
industrial wastes might Include options for regionalizatlon of
treatment for municipal and Industrial wastes, separate systems,
or upgrading existing municipal systems.  Waste treatment capa-
cities of these alternatives should correspond to the projected
land development pattern in the area.  The residual waste disposal
options would vary depending on the choice of treatment systems.
Alternative management programs for construction, operation, and
maintenance of the treatment works would have to be developed and
include consideration of the financial arrangements for the local
share of construction, the financing of operations and maintenance,
                          1-10

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

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

5.  Analyze alternative plans

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

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

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

    Adopting design  standards for new drainage systems would
help  protect future  water quality.  The costs of these measures
could be offset through tax  breaks.  The feasibility of implement-
ing these design standards would depend on adequate staffing
of the agencies responsible  for supervising their  enforcement.
                           1-11

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

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

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

7.  Plan Approval and Program Implementation

    Plan review and approval will be based on whether the plan
demonstrates that the 1983 water quality goals specified in
Section 101(a)(2) will be met and that the plan meets the
requirements of Part 131 regulations.  The Governor must designate
management agency(s) having adequate authority and capability
to carry out the plan.

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

8.  Periodic Updating of the Plan

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

    Example:   The procedure for plan updating is that instream
monitoring will  be carried out by the management agency(s) to
determine needed plan revision.   The State will monitor progress
of the management program and recommend specific actions needed
to assure meeting water quality standards.
                          1-12

-------
                               CHAPTER 2

            CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL


2.1  Purpose

     The purpose of the State's continuing planning process Is to set up a
management program and procedures to carry out water quality planning and
implementation requirements of the Act.  These requirements include standards
setting and revision (5303(c)), preparation of State Water Quality Management
Plans (S303(e) and S208), areawide planning and implementation (S208), annual
assessment and projection of water quality (§305(b)), clean lakes (S314(a)),
Federal/State estimate of publicly owned treatment works needs (5516(b)), and
data for the Federal report on water quality (§104(a)(5)).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.3  Detailed Guidance on Required Process Elements

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

     A.  Process Design

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

-------
                Table 2,1  State Continuing Planning Process
                           Major Steps and Process Elements
A.
Process Design
T.State Agency Responsible for Coordinating
    Continuing Planning Process and State
    WQM Plans
2.  Statement of Planning Authority
3.  Preliminary Description of Process
    Requirements
4.  Review and Revision Procedures	
                 —x,	
B.   Process Inputs
     I!Public Participation
     2.  Intergovernmental Cooperation and
         Coordination
     3.  Program Coordination
         a.  Water Program Relationships
         b.  Coordination with other Local, State,
	and Federal.Programs	
 C.    Preparation of Annual State
	Strategy
     State/EPA Agreement  (Including Delineation
     of  Planning Areas and  Planning Responsibil-
     ities)
      1
      3,
     A.
    Segment Classification; Listing of Basins
    or Approved Planning Areas and Segments
    Designation of Areawide Planning Areas
    and Agencies
    Delegation of Planning Responsibilities
    Annual Preparation/Revision of Agreement
I                                                  Preparation of Annual
                                                  State Program (8106)
 E.    Review/Revision  of Water Quality
      Standards  and  Definition of Antidegradation
      Policy
 F.    Preparation  of state  water quality
      Management Plans
      T.Requirements  for  State WQM Plan
          Preparation
      2.   Review and Certification  of  Plans
          for Areawide  Planning Areas
      3.   Designation of Management Agencies
          to Implement  Plans	
ti.

u.
ou touts: Description of state
Cont1nu1na Planning Process
J,
Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
1. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
                                       2-3

-------
1.  State Planning Agency Responsible for coordinating the
               \gency	
Continuing Planning Process and  State WQM Plans
(8130.10(0(6)).  (S130TT2T
    A single agency is to be designated by the Governor to be
responsible for developing and submitting the continuing planning
process, receiving input to the process, and making appropriate
arrangements with other agencies which will  have planning responsi-
bility for developing portions of the State  WQM Plan.

    .  Description of Agency

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

2.  Statement of Planning Authority; Statement that Implementation
    Authority Exists or Will Be Sought (1130.10(0(11))

    The planning authority of the agency chosen to be  responsible
for the continuing planning process should be clearly  established
in State statute.  This agency does not have to possess implementing
authority, but will have to Identify management agencies that do
have such authority to carry out appropriate portions  of a State
WQM Plan.  At the time that a State agency Is designated to carry
out the continuing planning process, an investigation  should be
initiated of what general authority 1s needed on the part of the
State or other levels of government to Implement a State WQM Plan.
Where enabling legislation is needed to establish the  authority at
the State or substate level to establish water pollution management
and regulatory programs, the continuing planning process submission
should specify how such implementing authority will be obtained.

    .  Description of Planning Authority and Needed Implementation
       Authority

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

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

       As specific elements  of State WQM Plans are developed,
    a more specific delineation of  existing and needed
    authority will be  possible.  This information  should be
    included in the designation of  management agencies (5130.15)
    upon completion of the State WQM Plan.

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

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

4.  Review and Revision of Process  (8130.43)

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

    -  Process Design
    -  State Strategy
    -  State/EPA Agreement

    It is not necessary to annually revise the entire continuing
planning process design 1n order to incorporate new substantive
information such as a revised State Strategy.  It is only necessary
to incorporate the revised substantive material into the structure
set up for continuing planning.
                           2-5

-------
B.  Process Inputs

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

    1.  Public Participation

        •   Requirements of the Act (S130.10(a)(l))

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

        •   Institutional Alternatives in Setting  Up  Public  Participation
           Programs         ~~""

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

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

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

2.  Intergovernmental Cooperation  and Coordination (S130.10(a)(2)),
    (8130.16)

    .   Adequate Input from Local and  Regional  Units of Government
       (S130.16(a)T

       In order to manage  water  quality planning and implementation
    activities for the State,  the  agency  responsible for  the  continu-
    ing planning process should  seek  the  advice  of affected local and
    regional  governments.   This  consultation  is  especially important
    in developing the State Strategy, State/EPA  Agreement, and carrying
    out the State WQM planning responsibilities.  This consultation is
    also essential in making decisions concerning designation of area-
    wide agencies to undertake the 208 planning  responsibilities with-
    in the overall State WQM Plan. Finally,  consultation is  needed to
    provide coordination between areas with designated 208 planning
    agencies, other agencies to  which planning activities of  the State
    WQM Plan  have been delegated,  and the State  agency responsible for
  \  the continuing planning process.

    .   Institutional Arrangements  CS130.16(b))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        2-8

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

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

    .   Interstate and International Cooperation  (S130.16(e))

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

3.  Program Coordination (S130.10(a)(3))

    a.  Water Program Relationships

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

        (1)  Relationship to  Monitoring and  Surveillance Program

             .  State Monitoring Program  (S130.30(a))

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

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

.   Stream Monitoring Needs for State WQM Plan Preparation
   (S130.30(b7T

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

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

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

-------
   - total maximum dally    --  Additional monitoring
    loads (8131.ll(f))         information may be
                               needed to determine
                               whether a segment is
                               in fact water quality
                               limited.  Next, data on
                               the rate of pollutant
                               loading of significant
                               point source dischargers
                               and estimates of nonpoint
                               source waste load rates
                               to the segment may be
                               needed to determine the
                               total maximum daily load
                               and relative contribution
                               of point and nonpoint
                               sources to a segment under
                               both dry weather and wet
                               weather flow conditions.
                               Sufficient data is needed
                               to enable reliable use of
                               models.  The models would
                               then be used to establish
                               point  source waste load
                               allocations.

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

.  Groundwater Monitoring Needs for State WQM  Plan
   Preparation (5130.3mcj)

   The State agency or other agencies  delegated  planning
responsibilities should define those  areas where ground-
water problems exist or may exist in  the  future.   The
following criteria should be considered in  determining
areas where groundwater problems  may  exist:
      previous detection of concentration of pollutants
      1n groundwater above the U.S. Public Health Service
      or appropriate State recommended standards for
      drinking water.

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

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

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

(2)   Municipal  Facilities (S130.34(b)). (S130.31)

     .   Relationship between State WQM Planning and Section 201
        Facility Planning (S13Q.34(b))

         Pursuant  to Part 131.11(h), the State  WQM Plan is  to
     include  certain elements of planning  for municipal col-
     lection  and treatment systems,  Guidance on  this  element
     of the State  WQM Plan is presented in Ch,  3.6 and Ch.  8.
     The following facility  planning outputs  should be summa-
     rized in State WQM Plans for any  facilities  expected to
     receive  a  construction  grant award during  the five years
     following  initial  plan  approval;

        -  delineation  of service areas and population to be
           served
        -  preliminary  estimate of municipal  wastewater flows
           over the twenty year planning period
        -  preliminary  identification  of alternative treatment
           systems
        -  preliminary  specification of infiltration/inflow
           problems and possible solutions;  preliminary speci-
           fication of  sludge disposal  or  utilization  options
        -  preliminary  cost  estimates  for  collection,  treatment,
           infiltration/inflow  correction  and sludge utilization
           or disposal
        -  proposed program  for financing  above measures
        -  preliminary  determination of which alternatives  are
           likely  to be most cost-effective.
                   2-12

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

    .  Consistency of Approved State WQM Plan Outputs with
       Facilities Program (Sl3(U1(a). (b))

       After the State has approved the municipal facility
    element pursuant to 8131.11(h), further Step 1, 2,
    and 3 facilities grants are to be consistent with the
    approved facility outputs.  Further facility planning
    and construction grants may only be made to the manage-
    ment agency(s) designated pursuant to 5131.11(o) to imple-
    ment the facility portion of the State WQM Plan,  The
    Regional Administrator is given the responsibility for
    making the consistency determination.

     .  Incomplete Municipal Assessment—Relationship with
       Facilities Program (5130.31Ca). (bTT

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

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

       Because the  facilities outputs required in 8131.ll(h)
    are  critical for maintaining an integrated program  for
    facilities planning and construction,  these  outputs
     should be timed in accordance  with  construction  priori-
     ties  in  the State.  The EPA/State Agreement  should  be
     closely  coordinated with  the State's facilities  program.

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

     The  State's participation in  the  NPDES program  is  con-
tingent upon  having  an approved  continuing  planning  process.
In addition  to process»approva1,  the various activities  of
the continuing planning  process  must be  carried out  accord-
ing to statutory  time  schedules.   Once the  plan or portions
                  2-13

-------
of the State WQM Plan are approved, point source permits
must be consistent with these plans.  See Chapter 3.10 for
the procedure for State WQM Plan adoption.

     .  Timing of State WQM Plan Completion and Permits

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

(4)  Designated  208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
     Planning Program Relationship (S130.33U))

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

     .   Water Quality Analysis Program

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

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

-------
                  .   Water  Quality  Implementation  Program

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

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

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

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

                  •   Coordination of Areawide Planning and State WQM
                     Development  (Sl30.lO(cK8); S130.33(b).  (O)

                     Since  the designated areawide planning agencies will
                  play  a key role 1n completing the  State WQM plan, they
                  should be consulted  by the  State agency responsible for
                  the continuing planning process  in the formulation of
                  the process  and especially  in the  State Strategy and
                  EPA/State Agreement. The EPA/State  Agreement 1s the
This refers to the requirements of 513].ll(hT^nT.The relationship
between facility planning outputs developed In the State WQM Plan  and
completion of the Step 1  facility planning requirements  1s  discussed 1n
Chapter 3.6 and Chapter 8.
                                2-15

-------
      basis for establishing the precise division of
      responsibilities for the various elements of the
      State WQM Plan.  Since the water quality analysis
      elements of the State WQM Plan are critical to
      completing designated areawide plans, the EPA/State
      Agreement must specify how the State will ensure
      completion of these elements in phase with the needs
      of designated areawide agencies in time to meet the 1983 water
      quality goal and should indicate the milestones that the State
      will use to monitor the progress of planning conducted by
      areawide planning agencies.  The State/EPA Agreement should
      also specify how areawide planning will be coordinated for
      interstate waters.

         Due to time and resource constraints, the State may
      delegate some of the analytic elements of the State WQM
      Plan (inventories and projections, maximum daily loads,
      wasteload allocations, schedules of compliance) to
      designated agencies for completion, subject to State
      review.  Whatever division of responsibilities is
      established between the State and designated areawide
      planning agencies, the plan elements developed by area-
      wide agencies should be reviewed for consistency with
      the State WQM Plan and incorporated into the State WQM
      Plan after review and certification as specified in
      S131.20(f).  Guidance on determination of consistency
      of designated areawide plans with the State WQM Plan is
      found in Chapter 3.10.  In the case of nonpoint source
      planning, the State has the option under Section 208(b)(4)
      of pre-empting the nonpoint source planning and implementa-
      tion in designated areas.  In order to present the mini-
      mum of uncertainty to the designated area planning process,
      the State should establish its intentions regarding non-
      point source planning in the State/EPA Agreement.

b.  Coordination with Other Local, State, and Federal Planning
    Programs (8130.34)

    Water quality management is affected by policies concerning
land use, regional development, and many planning activities
carried out in a State.  Information concerning these policies
and plans is needed as an input to the State continuing planning
process and State WQM Plan.  The effect of these policies and
plans on attaining water quality objectives should be evaluated.
In addition, it is necessary to consider the impact that the
water quality management plan may have on other plans and policies
of the State.  The following guidance suggests some of the program
relationships that should be defined in the State's continuing
                           2-16

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

    (1)  Relationship with EPA Solid Waste Programs

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

    (2)  Relationship with EPA Air Quality Programs

         .  State Implementation Plan

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

            -  Stationary Source Review
            -  New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
            -  Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP)
            -  Transportation Controls
            -  A1r Quality Maintenan.ce Planning
                       2-17

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

    .  Air Quality Maintenance Planning

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

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

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

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

-------
Water quality standards and
drinkinq water standards
Siting of public water supply -
systems
Protection of aquifer recharge-
areas
                                    The State should define in its water
                                    quality standards revision process
                                    pursuant to 5130.17, how water quality
                                    standards policy will be coordinated
                                    with existing and proposed State law
                                    regarding drinking water or water
                                    intake standards.

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

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

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

(4) Relationship with  Level  B  Studies

    .   Program Coordination

       Section 209 of  the FWPCAA authorizes the preparation of Level B
    plans for all  basins  1n  the  United States.  These plans are to ana-
    lyze water and related land  resources management problems and serve
    as a basis for recommendation to Congress of priorities for "inves-
    tigation, planning,  and  construction of projects" (42 U.S.C. 1962(b)).

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

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

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

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

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

   -  Existing and Projected Water Withdrawals and Consumptive
      Demand

      This information should be related to municipal  and industrial
   wastewater flow projections (§131.11(c)  of the State WQM Plan)
   especially where availability of water is a limiting factor in
   future development of an area.  Information on future surface  and
   groundwater supply should be related to  water quality (including
   salt water intrusion and salinity) assessment and pollution
   control needs in the State WQM Plan.

   -  Water Supply Facilities. Effects on Water Quality

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

   •  Water Development Measures, Watershed Management

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

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

       -   Wild  and  Scenic Rivers

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

       -   Energy Development

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

    .   Future Level B Studies SI30.34(d)

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

(5) Relationship with Other State and  Federal  Programs

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

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

-------
    In addition to .planning efforts, other Federal  agencies are
directly involved in programs within the States which relate to
the State WQM Plan.   Many of the Corps of Engineers activities,
for example, can have a significant effect on water quality.  In
addition, the Corps  provides technical assistance which can be of
use to a State preparing a State WQM Plan.  One way this is done
is through the Corps' Urban Studies Program which is concerned
with urban water resources problems, including wastewater manage-
ment.  In addition,  the Corps 1s specifically directed to provide
technical assistance for areawide planning (Section 208(n) FWPCA).
EPA and the Corps have developed an agreement which specifies the
coordinating and funding policy regarding this assistance.

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

    Other Federal programs can also be of use to the States 1n
preparing their State'WQM Plan.  The Soil Conservation Service of
the Department of Agriculture can provide technical assistance 1n
the assessment and control of nonpolnt sources, especially those
resulting from uses which can cause soil erosion.  In addition, all of
SCS administered programs are implemented through local Soil and
Water Conservation Districts.  These conservation districts, which
are legal subdivisions of state government established under state
law, have the responsibility for'planning and carrying out erosion
control  and related conservation programs.  With the assistance
of their cooperating agencies, they can help provide Information
on nonpolnt source control techniques, provide technical assistance
in planning for utilization of such techniques, and assist  in  im-
plementation of the measures.   In some states, the districts have
plan approval and other  responsibilities  1n connection with mandatory
State and local sediment control programs.

    The  Forest Service,  as land managers, needs to establish cooper-
ative planning relationships with each State that has U.S.  forest
lands.   The State should develop specific agreements with  the  Forest
Service  on how to relate Its watershed management program  to the
State WQM Plan.   EPA can assist  1n  establishing the necessary  rela-
tionships.  The  Forest  Service  does provide  technical and  financial
assistance to  the States for  the administration of  State and private
forest  lands.  These programs  should  be coordinated with  the State
WQM Plan.

     Other Department of Agriculture programs  include  the  Agricul-
tural  Conservation  Program administered  by  the Agricultural  Stab-
ilization and  Conservation Service which  can supply cost-sharing
assistance  for many of the Best Management  Practices  that may  be
necessary to  control  runoff and reduce  sedimentation  from farms.
Technical assistance for this program is  given by the Soil Con-
servation  Service and Forest Service.
                             2-22

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

(6) Planning Requirements for Federal  Properties. Facilities,
    or Activities S130.35

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

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

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

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

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

        .  Federal-State Cooperation in Plan Development (S130.35(b)-(d))

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

           All expenditures necessary to plan for and implement point and
        nonpoint source controls for Federal  sources are to be included
        in the budget of the FLM.  Under the provisions of Section 313
        of the Act, no exemptions shall be granted due to lack of appro-
        priation available.  This does not preclude contractual  arrange-
        ments between the State and the FLN» for technical  planning
        assistance.

C.  Preparation of Annual State Strategy

    1.  Purpose

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

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

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

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

3.  Contents of Strategy:

    -  Input to Strategy

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

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

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

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

       The State's annual water quality Inventory repdrt (305(b) Report)
    requires much of the same water quality assessment data as the State
    Strategy.  Since the 305(b) Report is intended to  be far more  com-
    prehensive than the Strategy's problem  assessment, the relevant
    aspects of the 305(b) report should be  used to constitute  the  problem
    assessment.  EPA has previously provided the States with guidelines  for
    the development of the 305(b) report which should  be consulted.  After
    the water quality assessments required  under 8131.ll(b) and (d) have
    been developed, this information should be used in preparation of  the
    Annual State Strategy as well as the 305(b) report.
                           2-25

-------
-  Priority and Ranking (S13Q.20(a)(2))

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

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

   The ranking of segments should be used  together with the muni-
cipal treatment works inventory developed  pursuant to §131.11(c)
to formulate the State's project priority list required in S35.915(c).
Project priorities should reflect both the severity of pollution
problems in different segments (e.g. segment ranking) and the
severity of pollution problems caused by municipal  facilities  (e.g.
municipal inventory ranking).

-  Approach to Solving Problems (S130.20(a)(3))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"  Program Resource Needs (8130.20(a)(4))

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The annual  State Strategy should be submitted as part of the
        continuing planning process annual  program submission (see Ch. 2.3.H).
        Both the annual State Strategy and any revisions to the continuing
        planning process should be submitted with the Section 106 Program
        Submission.

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

    Based on the information in the State Strategy, a specific agreement
on planning responsibilities and tasks is needed in order to  carry out
the State WQM Plan.  This agreement must be submitted within  150 days
after the effective date of the Part 130 regulations as part  of the
State's continuing planning process submission.  The agreement is to be
reviewed annually and revised if necessary,as part of the annual  planning
process review (S130.43).

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

    1.  Segment Classification; Listing and Maps of Planning
        Areas and Segments CS130.10(cH2), (3))

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

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

.  Segment Classification

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

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

   -  Where increase in waste loads 1s expected to  exceed the
   assimilative capacity of the stream after application  of  effluent
   limitations required by 1983, the segment should be  classified
   as water quality limited.

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

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

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

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

.  Planning Area Selection

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

-------
Information, planning areas can be delineated for carrying out
the State WQM Plan.

   The revised Part 130 regulations provide flexibility in the
choice of planning area.  The following are approaches to delineate
planning areas that may be used singly or In combination:

   -  hydrologic boundaries — Certain of the requirements of the
      State WQM Plan (segment classification, calculation of total
      maximum daily loads) should generally be carried out according
      to hydro!ogic units.

   -  political boundaries — Political units may be used as plan-
      ning areas for carrying out the requirements of the State
      WQM Plan with respect to development of abatement measures.

   Under either of these approaches, the State can be divided
geographically into mutually exclusive planning areas.  However,
it is possible to interpret planning area as referred to in 5.130.11,
to mean any area for which planning for particular problems is
conducted.  Under this latter interpretation, it is possible for
one form of water pollution problem to overlap with areas having
other forms of water pollution.   The State may delineate
both mutually exclusive and overlapping areas and subareas.
However, some requirements, such as the water quality analyses
and determination of maximum allowable pollutant loads need to
be conducted for single, mutually exclusive, areas of the State.
The following are factors to consider 1n determining whether to
delineate areas for various forms of planning:
                         2-30

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

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

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

    The category approach involves delineating subareas  within  a
planning area where particular forms of pollution or pollution
generating activity occur, and developing abatement measures for
each of these pollution sources, one at a time.  The level of
abatement for each source should be based on the water quality
analysis (conducted on a hydrologic basis).  This approach enables
focusing on priority problems and developing immediate solutions
without having to consider the interaction and cost effectiveness
tradeoffs among all the abatement alternatives.  Under this
approach it is possible that one geographic area will be in a
planning subarea for various forms of pollution.  It is  also
possible for the subareas to overlap.  Planning procedures based
on this approach are further discussed in Ch. 3.6.

-  Areas where planning is not required

   Whichever of the above approaches (or combination of  approaches)
for planning area delineation is used, it is possible that there
will be areas where the State can certify, pursuant to S130.11(b)
that no pollution problems exist (see discussion of this certifi-
cation procedure on page 2-35).  While it is conceivable that
the State would delineate these areas along political jurisdic-
tions, it could even choose those areas where no particular form
of pollution exists to be delineated along hydrologic boundaries.
                         2-31

-------
      In addition to technical considerations, institutional
   factors should be kept in mind in determining how to delineate
   planning areas.  Part 130 regulations require institutional
   coordination including adequate intergovernmental input,
   public participation, and coordination with other planning
   activities.  In addition, a State/EPA Agreement on level of
   detail and timing should be developed for each planning area.
   This places practical limitations in the approach of having
   overlapping planning areas.  Consequently, where complex
   water quality problems and institutional constraints exist
   to Statewide planning, the area level planning approach is
   probably more feasible.

2. Designation of Areawide Planning Areas and Agencies; Description
   of Existing and Proposed Designations (8130.13); (131.10(e),(f))

   Where the State chooses to delegate major planning responsibilities
for development of the State WQM Plan to a single representative agency,
the State should consider designating the area as an areawide planning
area pursuant to Section 208(a)(2)-(4).  Guidance on the procedures and
criteria for designating such areas will be contained in a separate
handbook entitled "Area and Agency Designation Handbook."  This hand-
book will be available through the EPA Regional Offices.   This handbook
indicates the information to be submitted to EPA in describing proposed
areawide planning agency designations.

3. Delegation of Planning Responsibilities (§130.10(c)(9). 8130.14)

   .  Planning Responsibilities (8130.14(a))

      As part of the work plan established in the EPA/State Agreement
   on level of detail and timing, and the delineation of planning
                         2-32

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

   Whatever division of planning tasks 1s followed in a planning
area, the State remains responsible for the integration of these
activities and is responsible for ensuring that all the elements of
the planning are coordinated and consistent. The State  is also
responsible for ensuring that public participation, intergovern-
mental Input in the form of advisory group activities,  and other
coordination functions are carried out in each planning area.
Because these coordination activities should be closely related to
the planning tasks, if the State has delegated the major planning
tasks to another agency, the State may also choose to delegate
its supervisory and coordination functions as a lead agency in the
approved planning area.  This lead agency would then be responsible
to carry out the public participation program, the coordination
with advisory groups and interagency coordination activities.  The
lead agency 1n the approved planning area could also undertake the
day to day supervision of the work plan for the area and the
updating of the work plan.  It must be emphasized, nevertheless,
that any delegation of the State's functions in planning, including
supervisory and coordination functions, does not modify the res-
ponsibility of the State to ensure that the requirements of the
Act are carried out.

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

.  Consultation with Locally Elected Officials and Local
   Organizations (S130.14WT

   The State should develop appropriate mechanisms for consulting
with locally elected officials and local organizations  for purposes
of determining planning responsibilities.  The public participation
                        2-33

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

.  Description of Delegated Planning Agency(s) (S130.14(c).(d))

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

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

.   Nonpoint Source Planning Responsibilities

   In the State/EPA Agreement that is initially submitted, the
State should explicitly make its intentions known regarding
nonpoint source planning and regulatory responsibilities in
areas where 208 planning agencies have been designated or where the
State intends to designate such areas.  If the State intends to
undertake nonpoint source planning and regulatory activities in
areas already designated for 208 planning it should notify the
responsible agencies in writing and also so notify the EPA
Regional Administrator.  The State should request the EPA Region-
al Administrator to appropriately modify the areawide planning
project work plan.  The State should indicate its concurrence
with any areawide planning project work plans when it develops
the State/EPA Agreement.

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

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

-------
     4.  State/EPA Agreement for each Approved Planning Area (S130.11(a))

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

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

         -  level of detail of plan elements or outputs

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

         -  logical relationships and interdependences between tasks

         -  planning agency responsible and timing of each task

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

         The level of detail of planning will depend on the types of
     problems encountered in the planning area and priorities for resolving
     these  problems.  Further guidance on determining level of detail of
     the elements of a State WQM Plan 1s contained in Ch. 3.

          .  Certification that no Water Quality or Source Control Problem
            Exists  (Sl30.11(b})

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   The Agreement must provide a sequence for phasing of  SI31  plan
preparation for completion by November 1, 1978 at the appropriate
level of detail and in sufficient time to meet the 1983  national
water quality goal  specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act.   The
level of detail of each plan element  should be such that upon  comple-
tion of the element implementation of needed control measures  can
proceed expeditiously.  However, as indicated in the guidance  on State
WQM Plan development (Ch.  3.3) in some cases, where uncertainty exists
regarding the existence of a past water quality problem  or where
implementation cannot be undertaken within the next five years, the
level of detail of plan elements may  consist of an assessment  of
control needs.

   The following important dates should be kept .in mind:

   -  November 28,  1975 -- final Parts 130, 131 promulgation

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

   -  April 26, 1976    — Continuing planning process revisions
                           to be submitted by State to Regional
                           Administrator

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

   -  May 26, 1976      — Regional Administrator to approve/
                           conditionally approve/disapprove
                           continuing planning process

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

                           2-36

-------
           -  September 1976    -- Biennual  Report to Congress  on  Municipal
               & September 1978    Needs
           -  July 1977
                            -- Recommended revisions  of  water  quality
                               standards due
           -  December 1977     -- Second round of NPDES permits

           -  November 1, 1978  -- State WQM Plans due for final  submission
                                   to Regional  Administrator
           -  March 1, 1979
                            -- Regional  Administrator to  approve/
                               conditionally approve/disapprove  State
                               WQM Plan  and Implementation Program
E.
       Within a given planning area the State/EPA Agreement should
    provide appropriate timing of the various  elements  of a State WQM Plan.
    As the above schedule indicates, the planning period  for preparation
    of the State WQM Plan is somewhat more than 2 years (between  finaliz-
    ing the State/EPA Agreement and submission of plans).

Review/Revision of Water Quality Standards and Definition of
Antidegradation Poli cy
    EPA policy on the review and revision of water quality standards is
stated in §130.17.  Detailed guidance interpreting how to meet the require-
ments of S130.17 is contained in Ch.  5.  . The following is an overview of
the steps that the State would need to follow to carry out the policy
expressed in S130.17:

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

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

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

        .  Appropriate beneficial uses should be indicated and categorized

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

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

          .   Adequate criteria to support the uses should be included

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

          .   Anti-degradation Policy should be established and Implemented

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

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

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

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

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

    In order to carry out water quality analysis and develop imple-
mentation measures, it is necessary to have a clear set of planning
objectives.  The State water quality standards as revised (or proposed)
consistent with SI30.17 will provide the primary set of planning goals.
In revising standards it is also important to understand the impli-
cations of a particular policy in terms of the Implementing actions
required.  Because standards revision and plan development are two
interdependent processes that should be carried out in the same time
frame, it is necessary to make some simplifying assumptions in order
to Initiate each process without depending entirely on the results of
the other process.  Once standards policies have been proposed and
implementing actions for these general policies evaluated, it is
possible to further refine both the standards policies and implement-
ing actions.

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

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

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

    -  Timing for State transmlttal of recommended standards revision
       policy consistent with 8130.17 to planning agency(s) developing
       State WQM Plan                             -

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

    -  Timing of public hearings on proposed or adopted standards revision

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

    In general  the State should attempt to develop a standards revision
policy consistent with 5130.17 as soon as possible, 1n order to provide
planning objectives  to agency(s) developing the State WQM  Plan.  Sufficient
time should be  alloted for the State to conduct the procedures required
under State law for  standards revision.  Adopted  revisions of standards
must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 1977.


                           2-39

-------
       Table  2.2.
           Relationship of Water Quality Standards and Hater
           Quality Management  Plans
I.  Standards Revision
    Process

A.  Development of State
    Standards Policy to
    Retain Existing Desig-
    nated Beneficial Uses
    and Protect Existing
    Instream Beneficial
    Uses at 1983 Goal
    Levels Consistent with
    40 CFR 130.17
                                                    II.
                          State WQM Plan
                           evelogmen?
    1.
    3.
   4.
   5.
Determine whether
present use classi-
fications are
appropriate to
retain existing
designated bene-
ficial uses and
protect existing
Instream beneficial
uses (Including
policies of anti-
degradation)
                       B.   Development of State
                           Standards Policy to
                           Upgrade Existing Use
                           Classification to
                           Levels Consistent
                           with 40 CFR 130.17.
Proposed upgraded
uses that will
result In achieve-
ment of 1983 goal
levels wherever
attainable
                                                         Develops
                                                         Process
Determine (on a pre- 2. Determine (on a
11ml nary basis) the preliminary basis)
criteria needed to the criteria needed
protect existing to protect proposed
designated and In- upgraded uses
stream beneficial
uses. (Administra-
tor's Quality
Criteria for Water
should' be the basic
reference)
j,






»







Provide recommended 3. Provide recommended 1. Initial plan
Standards revision Standards revision development based
policy for existing policy
for upgrading on (a) malnte-

designated and In- uses to planning nance of existing
stream beneficial agencies designated and
uses to planning
agencies
1


Instream
beneficial uses
j and Antl-deqra-




• datton policy and
(b) attainment

of upgraded uses








Re-evaluate 4. Re-eval
feasibility of feaslbl
maintaining upgradl
existing deslg- classlf
beneficial uses



If necessary, the
plan recommends
revisions to the
state water quality
standards (proposed

If a state accepts
the plan recommenda-
tions, then the state
can Initiate or com-
plete formal standards
revision process re-
quirements to Include
recommendations
1
2. Develop alter-
native plans
to achieve
the proposed
or adopted
standards
i
3. Determine
uate environmental,
llty of social and









Icatlon pact of proposed
•to achieve
the proposed
or adopted
standards

6. If a state re-
jects the plan
recommendations
_ then the plan

fled to conform
, to established
standard policy
7. Complete formal
plan adoption
process






,



                                     2-40

-------
F.  Preparation of State Water Quality Management Programs

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

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

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

    2.  Review and Certification of Plans  for Areawide Planning Areas

        Procedures for review and certification of areawide plans pursuant
    to S131.20tf) is discussed in Ch.  3.10.

    3.  Designation of Management Agencies (S130.15)

        .  Timing of Designations (S130.15(a))

           The requirement that the continuing planning process identify
        management agencies (S130.15)  should be fulfilled when specific
        elements of the State WQM Plan have been developed and proposed
        for implementation.  Agencies to implement elements of the State
        WQM Plan should be indicated in completing elements (n) and (o)
        of 40 CFR Part 131.11.

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

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

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

-------
        Procedures for designating implementing and operating agencies
        are discussed in Ch*. 3.10 as part of the procedures  for review/
        approval of State WQM Plans.

G.  Outputs;  Description of State Continuing Planning
    Process S130.10(a)-Ccf

    After each of the major steps in developing the continuing planning
process have been completed, a description of the overall  process  should
be prepared. . The description should cover each of the process elements
required under S130.10(a)-(c).

    1.   Optimal Format for Continuing Planning Process Submission

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

        .  Purpose — purpose of element, including description of how the
                      element meets statutory requirements

        .  procedures ~ procedures that the State will  use  to carry out
                         each element in the Continuing Planning Process
                         (including revision of the element)

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

        .  timing -- timing of the element

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

        For example, taking the general  requirement of the process des-
    cription which calls for a description of public participation in
    the Continuing Planning Process (S130.10(a)(1)), the State might
    answer the following questions in developing this  part of its  process
    description:

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

        .  procedures — How is an effective program of public participa-
                         tion structured with respect  to the various
                         stages of planning?  What forms or  techniques of
                         public participation are used? What institutional
                         arrangements are used?


                                  2-42

-------
        .   inputs/  -- In  what  manner  1s  Information  gathered  through
           outputs     public participation  used as an  Input to decision
                       making?   How  1s the public  kept  aware of the
                       results  or outputs of decisions  1n  the  process:

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

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

        A completed continuing  planning process description could thus  be
    organized around the characteristics  of  each element of the process
    suggested by this format.   A summary  of  the process description could
    be displayed in a table such as  the following  (see  Table 2.3).  The
    States should be encouraged to develop whatever outline for describing
    their planning process that seems  most appropriate. The significance
    of the format suggested above and  the format for  a  summary of the
    process description is that the  State should attempt to develop a very
    simple reference document which  would serve as an index for anyone
    interested in the State's water  program  to understand  the  way 1n which
    the program was managed, its program  elements, their relationships,
    timing, and interaction with other activities.

H.  Planning Process Adoption and Approval Procedures

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

        All States will be required  to revise parts of  their continuing
    planning process in order to incorporate substantive changes  in the
    processes such as the  State/EPA  Agreement on carrying  out  State WQM
    Plans.  All States will also need  to  reformulate  their continuing
    planning process 1n order to comply with the revised requirements of
    40 CFR Part 130.  Submission of  the Continuing Planning Process
    description or elements of  the process  requiring  revision  1s  required
    150 days after the effective date  of  40  CFR Parts 130/131  regulations.
    In order to meet this  time  schedule,  the planning process  description
    should be formally adopted  by  the  State  after  appropriate  public
    participation before the  150 day period  expires.

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

-------
Table 2.3  Optional ^ Format for^Summary of
           Inscription of State Confirming  Planning  Process
Elements of Process
A. Process Design
1. State Agency Responsible for
Coordinating Continuing Planning
Process and State WQM Plans
2. Statement of Planning Authority
3. Preliminary Description of
Process Requirements
4. Review and Revision Procedures
Requirements
of Part 130
SI 30. 10
HI6
Icill )
~
5130.43

B. Process Inputs
1. Public Participation
2. Intergovernmental Cooperation
and Coordination
3. Program Coordination
a. Water Program Relationships
b. Coordination with other Local,
State r and Federal Proorams
S130.10
(a)(2Uc)(10)
(a)(3),(c)(8)

C. Preparation of Annual State
Strategy

D. State/EPA Agreement (including
Delineation of Planning Areas and
Planning Responsibilities)
1. Segment Classification; Listing of
Basins or Approved Planning Areas
and Segments
2. Designation of Areawide Planning
Areas and Agencies
3. Delegation of Planning Responsi-
bilities
4. Annual Preparation/Revision of
Agreement
,
E. Review/Revision of Wa'ier Quality
Standards and Defin't'on of
Anti degradation PoVcy

F. Preparation of State Water Duality
Management Plans
1. Requirements for State WQM
Preparation
2.- Review and Certification of Plans
for Areawide Planning Areas •
3. Designation of Management Agencies
	 to_Implement Plans
S130.10
Description of
Element
'/$$$>










•



















8130.10
c 2)
c 3
. c 7)
,cw7
(c)(9 •
(0(4)

SUU.IU
1
c)(5)
8130.10
(bH3)
S130.15


- .












































3



















G. Outputs; Description of
State Continuing Planning Process
H. Planning Process Adoption and Approval
Procedures
T. Planning Process Adoption
2. Submission
3. Review and Approval
J see above)

S130.40
S130.40 .
SI 30. 41 -42















                       2-44

-------
2. Submission (8130.40(b), (c))

   After the State water quality agency has adopted the description
of the planning process, the Governor or his deslgnee 1s required to
submit the adopted process to the Regional  Administrator within 150
days after the effective date of 40 CFR Parts 130/131 revised regula-
tions.

   The Governor or his deslgnee 1s required to notify the Regional
Administrator by letter of the process submission and furnish a
description of the process Itself.  This guideline has been developed
to facilitate preparation of the process description.  The description
could follow the format suggested In Table 2.3 or any other format
suitable for describing the continuing planning process.

3. Review and Approval (8130.41)

   The Regional Administrator 1s required to approve, conditionally
approve, or disapprove the planning process within 30 days of Its
submission by the Governor.

   .  Full Approval

      The Regional Administrator 1s required to approve a planning
   process description (and so notify the Governor by letter) 1f
   the process meets the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR Part 130
   revised.

   .  Conditional Approval or Disapproval

      In the event that the Regional Administrator finds that the
   process 1s deficient 1n providing the elements required In a
   continuing planning process, he may specify in a letter to the
   Governor particular deficiencies and a schedule for resubmlttlng
   the elements of the process found deficient;

      The Regional Administrator may disapprove the entire process
   1f 1t 1s found grossly deficient and does not reasonably demon-
   strate a coherent management approach to completing the substantive
   elements of a State WQM Plan by the statutory deadline.  If the
   process 1s disapproved, specific deficiencies and a schedule for
   resubmlsslon should be set out In the letter of notification to
   the Governor.

   .  Withdrawal of Approval (S130.42)

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

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

       If the Regional  Administrator finds deficiencies in State WQM
    Plans or portions of the plans, he should initiate an inquiry
    into the cause of the deficiency and ascertain which elements of
    the continuing planning process were not  carried out as planned,
    and what changes might be needed to make  the process operate more
    efficiently.
                     *
       After conducting an investigation of the causes of State WQM
    Plan deficiency and the relationship of such deficiencies  to the
    State's continuing planning process, the  Regional  Administrator
    may disapprove the continuing planning process by formally notify-
    ing the Governor of the affected State, and indicating the specific
    remedy for correcting the inadequacy of the process and a  schedule
    for corrective action.

4.  Review and Revision (8130.43)

    The State's procedure for review and revision of its continuing
planning process should be specified in its continuing planning
process description as  suggested in Ch. 2.3.A.
                            2-46

-------
                                CHAPTER 3

                           State Water Quality

                        Management Plan Development
3.1 Scope and Purpose
    State and areawlde WQM Plans are required in all  areas of each State.
The purpose of these plans is to develop a management program to implement
requirements for water quality standards establishment and revision (S303(c)),
identification of areas where effluent limitations are not sufficient to
meet standards and establishment of total maximum daily loads of pollutants
((S303(d)), implementation of water quality standards (S303(e)), and to carry
out the planning and management requirements of S208 statewide.

3.2 Program Objectives

    A. Principal Objective

       The overall objective of the Act is to "restore and maintain the
    chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters"
    (Section 101(a)).  To achieve this objective, "it is the national
    goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality
    which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish,
    and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be
    achieved by July 1, 1983" (Section 101(a)(2)).  To enable meeting
    the Act's objectives, "it is the national policy that areawide waste
    treatment management planning processes be developed and implemented
    to assure adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State"
    (Section 101(a)(5)).

       Thus the objective of the State WQM Plan is to define water.
    quality standards to implement the goals of the Act, determine
    allowable standards pursuant to Section 303, to develop
    plans for pollution abatement as required in Section 208(b)(2),
    and finally to select management agency(s) to implement the plan
  . as specified in Section 208(c)(2).

    B. Complementary Objectives

       To complement the water quality goals of Section 101(a)(2), provisions
    of Title II of the Act provide for additional aspects of water quality
    protection such as:

       - Water conservation and resource utilization through wastewater
         reuse or recycling;
                                    3-1

-------
       - Management of residual  waste;

       - Multiple use of wastewater treatment systems  and  associated
         lands for such.purposes as water supply,  recreation,  aesthetics,
         and fish and wildlife habitats;

       - Protection of ground water quality.

   Any other water-related goals of the planning area, such  as provision
   of adequate water supply and programs  for  land  or water resource manage-
   ment should be Identified for consideration in  development  of the  plans.
   These related goals should be recognized in the planning  process and
   should be Incorporated Into the plan to the extent  that their achieve-
   ment would not reduce the cost-effectiveness of the water quality
   management measures.

       Finally, the results of the planning process should be  coordinated
   with other plans for the area, such  as those discussed  in Ch.  2.

3.3 Program Content

   A. Major Program Components and Requirement Elements

       The required elements of State WQM Plans provide the  basis for
   a continuing planning and management program for water  pollution
   abatement.  These elements form two  major  components for  a
   water quality planning and management  program:   analysis  and
   action.  The analytic component of the program  incorporates the follow-
   ing elements:

       • Water Quality Analysis Program

         - Planning Boundaries;
         - Mater Quality Assessments (Including nonpoint source assessment)
           and Segment Classifications;
         - Inventories and Projections  of Discharges;
         - Revision of Standards;
         - Total Maximum Daily Loads;
         - Wasteload Allocations.
                                         3-2

-------
    The Implementation component of the program Includes the following
elements:

    0 Water Quality Implementation Program

      - Municipal and Industrial Treatment Works Program;
      •- Urban Stormwater Management Program;
      - Residual Waste Management Program;
      - Nonpolnt Source Management Program;
      - Target Abatement Dates and Schedules of Compliance;
      - Regulatory Program;
      - Management Program — Management Agency(s) and Institutional
        Arrangements to Supervise and Finance Plan Implementation.

    In addition to these program components, the State WQM Plan 1s  required
to Include an environmental assessment* covering both the analytic
and Implementation aspects of the plan.

B. Planning Responsibilities

    The State is responsible for developing the total State WQM Plan.  The
State may, however, designate 208 planning agencies to carry out some
or all of the Water Quality Implementation Program elements and provide
much of the analysis needed by the State to finalize the Water Quality
Analysis Program.  In areas which are not designated for 208 planning,
the entire State WQM Plan for that area 1s to be completed by the State.
Nevertheless, the State may delegate (1f these agencies agree) portions
of the planning to substate or Federal agencies.  In the State/EPA
Agreement for each area, the State must Identify the agency responsible
for each of these planning elements.

C. Level of Detail of Plan Elements

    The regulation 1s very specific In describing many of the plan
elements.  -In other cases, the regulation has been written to provide
latitude for Interpreting these elements.  To provide a common Interpreta-
tion  for these elements, criteria should be applied to determine that the
requirements are met.  A summary of the criteria for meeting the require-
ments of the regulation is found 1n Table 3.1 (p. 3 -56 ff).  These
criteria provide "tests" regarding the level of detail, factors to be
considered, and overall justification used in meeting each requirement
of the regulation.  The "tests" should not be viewed as a substitute for
the requirements of the regulation Itself, but as a means for interpret-
ing how to meet the requirements.

    In general, the criteria for meeting the requirements of the regula-
tion  Indicate that each element of the plan be developed in sufficient
detail to enable implementation of that element.  However, there may
                                      3-3

-------
a valid reason for not proceeding Immediately to develop a particular
element of the plan at the level of detail Indicated in Table 3.1.
Where it is not clearly understood that a particular water quality
problem exists, or where it is not expected that a control project can
be undertaken to correct a problem 1n the next five years, the Water
Quality Implementation Program — elements (h) - (o) (see Table 3.1) of the
plan can be developed in less detail than stated in Table 3.1.  In all cases,
the Water Quality Analysis Program — elements (a) - (g) should be
developed at the level of detail Indicated in Table 3.1, since these
elements provide the basis for developing the implementation measures.
The level of detail of the environmental assessment will naturally
be dependent on the level of detail of the implementation program.

    In cases in which elements (h) - (o) are not developed at the
level of detail indicated in Table 3.1, an assessment of possible control
measures, regulatory programs, and financial and management arrangements
corresponding to that element should be undertaken.  The decision on
where the required elements can be completed at the level of detail
suggested in Table 3.1 must be included in the State/EPA Agreement.
Table 3.2 indicates the level of detail to which elements (h) - (o)
should be developed where an assessment is sufficient.

D. Planning Methods

    Because water quality problems and priorities In managing these
problems will vary in different areas of the State, the elements of
the State WQM Plan that deal with abatement of different sources of
pollution ((h) - (m) In Table 3.1) may be developed through different
methods of analysis depending on the magnitude of the problem.
Depending on the method of analysis used to develop these elements,
greater or lesser complexity will arise 1n assessing how to implement
the abatement measures (elements (n) - (o) and selecting among alternatives
(element (p)).

    In complex urban-Industrial areas, the requirements of Section 208
and 303 should be developed through a planning process  that considers
the Interaction of all sources of pollution and management approaches
for abatement of these sources.  The EPA Guidelines for Areawide Waste
Treatment Management (August 1975) should be followed 1n areas where
208 planning has already been Initiated pursuant to 40 CFR Part 35
Interim Grant Regulations.

    The guidance presented in this document recommends  alternative
planning methods depending on the nature of pollution problems.  For
complex problem areas these guidelines recommend a planning approach
which 1s conceptually the same as that recommended in the Guidelines
for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning.
                                      3-4

-------
                                TABLE  3.2

                             Assessment for

                   Mater Quality Implementation  Program
  Category of Plan Elements*

• abatement measure elements
  (e.g., element (h), (1),
  (J). (k), (D, (m))
     Level  of Detail  of Assessment

• description of existing abatement
  measures  and their adequacy and
  effectiveness

• procedure to develop specifications
  for needed abatement measures, and
  proposed date of development of such
  specifications and abatement measures
• regulatory programs elements
  (e.g., element (n))
• description and evaluation of
  existing regulatory programs and
  an indication of whether authority
  exists to implement needed abate-
  ment measures

• procedures and timing for develop-
  ing needed regulatory programs
• management agency and
  financial arrangement
  elements (e.g.,
  element (o))
a indication of agency(s) having
  jurisdiction to deal with problem

• generalized cost estimate for
  correcting problem

• procedure and timing for identify-
  ing needed management agency(s)
  and financial arrangement to
  Implement abatement measures
*These elements are found In Table 3.1  The elements can be conveniently
arranged into the categories shown above, each of which would be
needed in developing an effective Implementation program for any form of
pollution.  No distinction in level of detail of the analytic requirements
(Elements (a) - (g) 1n Table 3.1) should be made.
                                      3-5

-------
3.4 Planning Criteria

    The State WQM Plans will  be evaluated by States and EPA 1n terms  of
their ability to achieve the  planning objectives in a given area.   The
Act also provides certain criteria for choosing among the means for
achieving these objectives.

    The following criteria should be used 1n the planning process,  in
plan selection, and will be applied by the States and EPA in plan  review
and approval:

    A. Cost-Effectiveness

       The Federal Water Pollution Control Act specifies cost-effectiveness
    as the criteria for the planning and development of wastewater manage-
    ment programs, 1n particular as those programs relate to municipal
    treatment works and controls of combined sewer overflows and storm
    sewer discharges.

       EPA has defined cost-effectiveness analysis as a systematic
    comparison of alternatives to Identify the solution which minimizes
    total costs to society over time to reliably meet given goals  and
    objectives.  Since Section 208(b)(2)(e) specifies that the plan
    should document the economic, social, and environmental Impact of
    plan implementation, the  local economic Impact (in addition to resource
    costs) must be Included in the total costs to society.  Thus the
    total costs to society to be minimized should Include:

       - resource costs;
       - economic costs;
       - soda! costs;
       - environmental costs;
          •

       In the case of State WQM Plans, effectiveness refers to
    meeting the 1983 goals of the Act while providing for the highest
    practical degree of technical reliability 1n the pollution control
    alternative that is chosen.

    B. Implementation Feasibility

       Explicit criteria for determining adequacy of the management
    provisions for carrying out waste treatment management are not
    provided in the Act.  This guideline sets forth the following  cri-
    teria, further elaborated In Ch. 9, for evaluating implementation
    feasibility of the management provisions of a plan:
                                     3-6

-------
       - adequate legal  authority;
       - adequate financial  capacity;
       - practicability;
       - managerial  capacity;
       - public accountability.

   C.  Public Acceptance

       Since the success of a  State WQM Plan depends  on  Its  acceptance
   by affected units of  government, the acceptability of the plan  to
   the general public and elected officials in a planning area  should
   also be regarded as a basic planning criterion.  The  application
   of this criterion 1n  the planning process 1s further  discussed  In
   Ch. 4.

3.5 Planning Sequence

   A.  Purpose

       The purpose of the planning process 1s to systematically evaluate
   alternative means of  achieving water quality goals and to formulate  a
   plan that can be Implemented by a management agency.   The planning
   process should Integrate technical  needs for pollution abatement  and
   management arrangements capable of Implementing  the abatement measures,
   and provide for public participation 1n plan development.

       In order to develop each of the components of  a State WQM Plan —
   (1) Water Quality Analysis  Program, and(2) Water Quality  Implementa-
   tion Program -- two forms of planning are necessary:   technical
   analysis and management/Institutional analysis.  The planning process
   can thus be divided Into technical  and management  planning,  each  of
   which 1s concerned with analysis and action, but which normally rely
   on different sets of planning expertise.

       The technical planning portion of the planning process involves
   Identifying the priority water quality problems  of the area, recog-
   nizing any constraints 1n dealing with the problems, and  developing
   alternatives to achieve water quality goals.  The  alternative plans
   may then be evaluated according to the planning  criteria  discussed
   in this chapter.
                                         3-7

-------
       Management planning, which concerns selection of a management
   agency or agencies and development of appropriate Institutional
   arrangements for plan Implementation, should be conducted con-
   currently and 1n coordination with technical planning.  Management
   planning should Identify water quality management problems,  and
   analyze the capability of existing agencies and arrangements to
   carry out the regulatory and management requirements of Section  208.
   Institutional problems, lack of authority, or lack of financial
   capacity for meeting Section 208 requirements should be Identified. .
   Alternative means to acquire proper authority, financial capacity, and
   effective Institutional arrangements for plan Implementation should be
   developed.  Finally, alternative management agency(s) and Institutional
   arrangements should be evaluated and a single alternative selected according
   to criteria discussed In this chapter.
       Developing alternative technical and management plans and selection  of
   a State WQM Plan require public participation throughout the planning
   process.  Public participation requirements and means for ensuring
  •adequate participation at each stage in the planning process are discussed
   1n Ch. 4.

   B. Planning Flow Chart

       Table 3.3 1s a flow chart depicting a series of steps to develop
   a State WQM Plan.  Some of the steps are needed to complete  required
   plan elements* and are so denoted 1n the text accompanying the chart.
   The chart also Includes many optional planning steps which may prove
   helpful 1n developing a coherent plan to meet the requirements.

       Table 3.1 Includes criteria or "tests" for determining the factors
   and Information to be considered and overall justification used  1n
   meeting each requirement of the regulation.  The guidance presented
   In this chapter on each plan element 1s related to the criteria  found
   In Table 3.1.  Both the criteria and guidance sections follow the
   outline of the regulation except where noted otherwise.

3.6 Technical Planning

   A. Purpose

       The purpose of technical planning 1s to develop a coordinated
   water quality management strategy to meet 1983 water quality goals.
   The strategy may be a combination of:  (1) municipal wastewater
   treatment systems, (2) Industrial wastewater pretreatment or
   treatment, (3) residual waste management, (4) urban stormwater
   management, and (5) nonpolnt source management.  Implementation


*uenotea in the accompanying text as Element (a), (bj, (c), etc.,
corresponding to 40 CFR Part 131.11 (a) - (o).
                                         3-8

-------
          3.6  IECHH1CAL PLASHING

              A.   (See Text)

              B.   Input!
                                                                                          TABLE 3.3

                                                                 flan Chart - Btate Water Quality Mana«»»ent flannel
                    C.  Conduct Water Quality Analysis
                  1.   Information from 303 (e)  Basin
                      Plans and Facilities Plans
                  2.   Information from KFDES Permit
                  3.   Related Water Management
                      Information
                  4.   Coal* other than Water Quality
                  5.   Technical Information
                        1.  Establish Planning Boundary
                        2.  Specify Water Quality Standard*
                            and Antidegradation Pilicy
                        3.  Assess Problem* and Classify
                            Segments (preliminary)
                        4.  Estimate Existing/Projected
                            Wasteloads
                        9.  Estimate Maximum) Allowable
                            Load  (HAL)	
                                                                                                                               Classify  Segments
	 3
a Effluc
Segaei
K«

1 Det«
Iff]

^
[SI
•nt Limited
t

irmlne Applicable
Luent Limitations


:ep E]
f>
• b Water Quality I
Segment 1
j,
•' 1 Select
Eligible Sets
of Waste Load
Reductions to
_. X».r MAT.
I
2 Test Sets of
Waste Load
Reductions
for Consist-
ency with .
Standards
              D.  Choose Planning Approachea
                                                                                                                                                                            —>
                                                                                                                                                             [Step  D]
                 _SS_Abji
ing «pproacne»
ich (and level
r Relating
1 Constraints
Measures

•

%
/
1. Area
Aooroach .
V
/I

'. a .Develop Alternative
Eligible Load Reductions/
Effluent Limitations

• N
/

b. Screen
.Subplanf
\
t

c> Combine Subplans Into
* Alteimativa Areawide

VC*
              |2.  Category Approach

              |2.a Establish Categories
2.b Allocate Load
  Reductions from
  Step C.6 to each
  Category
2.Category Approach
  B>Develop Alternative Controls
   'for each Category of Sources
    to meet Load Seductions/
    Effluent Limitations	
          3.7 MAHAGEKEST FLASHING
A. see text
B. Define Characteristic of Management
Agency (s) and Institutional Arrange-
ment to Meet Bequirements of the Act
1. Regulatory Program
i
2. Implementing and Operating
Agencies
\
/

C. Conduct Analysis of:
1. Existing and Required Legal Authority
2. Existing and Required Financial
Arrangements
3. Potential of Existing Institutions
to Perform the Required Functions
\
/
______ 	 __ 	
D. Development of Alternative
Management Plans
1. Review and Assess Broad .
Management Options
2. Develop Alternative
3. Assess Alternatives to
Determine Consistency
with Technical Plans
4. Screen Alternatives in
terms of Inplementatlon
Feasibility

-------
                 3.8 COMBINED FLAN EVALUATION AND SELECTION
                     Combine Alternative Technical
                     Plans Chat Meet Standard* with
                     Alternative Management Flans
                     Corresponding to Technical
                     Plan*
B,  Compile Information on
    Alternative Areawlde Plana
    1.  Contribution to Water
        Quality and Other Related
        Water Management Goals of
   «    the Area
   *2.  Technical Reliability
    3.  Monetary Costs
    4.  Environmental Effects
    5.  Economic and Social Effects
    6.  Implementation Feaaibility
    7.  Public Acceptability
C.  Compare Alternative Plans
    Select Final Plan
    1.  Effects of Alternative
        Plans
    2.  Vary Alternatives if
        Necessary for Final Plan
        Selection
    3.  Prepare Environmental
        Assessment of Selected
        Plan
                                                                                                                                D.
                                               Develop Detailed
                                               Description of
                                               Plan Features
                                                                                                                                                        E.
                   Include
                   Provisions for
                   Performance
                   Assessment, Plan
                   Revision and Dp-
                   dating
                                                                                     3.9 FLAK OUTPOTS
CO
 I
                                                                            _v
                                                                                     A.  Interim Outputs

                                                                                     B.  Required Elements of  State Water Quality Management Plans:
    (a)   Planning boundaries        '             (j)
    (b)   Water quality  assessment  and segment    (k)
         classification
    (c)   Inventories  and projections             (1)
    (d)   Nonpolnt source assessment
    (e)   Water quality  standards                 (a)
    (f)   Total maximum  daily loadsi              (n)
    (g)   Point source load  allocations!          (o)
    (h)   Municipal facilities needs              (p)
Nonpolnt source control needs
Residual waste control needs;
land disposal needs
Urban and Industrial stormwater
needs
Schedules of compliance
Regulatory programs
Implementing and operating agencies
Environmental, social, economic
impact
D .
                                                                                          1  Not  required in effluent  limitation  segments.
                                                                                          Provisions  for Performance  Assessment, Plan Revision and Updating
                                                                                          Condensed Report on  Outputs Full Report on Planning Process
                                                                                          SUBMISSION PROCEDURES
                                                                                      A*   Adoption
                                                                                      B.   Certification
                                                                                      C.   Submission    >
                                                                                      D.   Review/Approval
                                                                                      E.   Revision

-------
of these abatement measures 1s to be achieved through regulatory
measures such as local ordinances and state legislation, capital
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and through improved
management of stormwater systems.

    Since technical planning will be shaped by the particular
problems of an area, the planning procedures in this guideline are
offered primarily as an organizational framework for planning.
Emphasis accorded each part of the framework will be largely a
matter of planning judgment.  In developing a water planning
management strategy, however, particular attention should be paid
to pollution controls other than traditional, capital intensive
structural methods.

   The technical planning process should be designed so as to
place the greatest emphasis on water quality problems that are
solvable with existing technology and sources of funding.  The water
quality problems that should receive the greatest priority
initially are municipal and industrial point source problems,
and nonpoint source problems that can be dealt with through
better management practices and future stormwater systems that
can be better designed.  Lower priority should be placed on non-
point source and stormwater problems that require large capital
investments for their solution.  For each type of water quality
problem, however, priority attention should be placed on
regulatory approaches which will help prevent problems from
occurring and thereby lessen the need for remedial pollution
abatement.

B. Inputs

   1. Information from 303(e) Basin Plans and Facilities Plans

     Available Information from Phase I 303(e) basin plans and
   facilities plans provide the basic Inputs for planning.  Facilities
   plans under Title  II of the Act, or preceding facility plans under
   18 CFR and Section 3(c) of the Water Quality Act of 1965,  should be
   coordinated with State WQM Plans as stated in Ch. 2.
                      i
   2. Information from NPDES Permits

     Information on discharges into navigable water available
   through the National Pollutant Discharge  Elimination System  (NPDES)
   should be consulted.  Terms and conditions of any permits  already
   Issued to dischargers should be accounted for in formulating pollu-
   tion control strategies for the second round of permits.
                                3-11

-------
   3. Related Water Management Information

      Much of the information necessary for developing an effective
   State WQM Plan may be available from related water management
   programs and studies.  Those which may be especially useful include:

      - Basin Studies under the Water Resources Planning Act;

      - Urban Studies of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;

      - Flood Plain Information Studies of the U. S. Geological
        Survey and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers;

      - State and Local Water Supply Studies and Data.

   4. Goals Other than Water Quality

      While the State WQM Plan is concerned with water quality,  selection
   of the final plan may affect other community goals.  It is therefore
   important to establish an understanding of community goals and plans,
   especially with respect to housing, economic development, transporta-
   tion, education, recreation, other environmental  goals, etc.   The
   relationship between these goals and water quality and other  environ-
   mental goals should be understood from the outset of the planning
   process.  Public participation in the planning process is an  effective
   way of defining the relationship between community goals.

   5. Technical Information

      A bibliography of technical studies related to the various parts
   of this guideline is provided at the end of this  document.

C. Conduct Water Quality Analysis

   1. Establish Planning Boundaries - Element (a)

      Ch. 2 provides guidance on initial selection of planning areas.
   Adjustments to initial planning boundaries may be desirable in
   order to encompass areas having particular water  quality problems
   or in order to be coordinated with other planning activities  in an
   area.  However, modification of planning boundaries necessitates
   change in the State/EPA Agreement.
                                  3-12

-------
2. Specify Water Quality Standards and Antidegradation Policy -
   Element (eT

   a. Overview of Standards Revision Process

      Recommendation for revision of standards is needed for two
   general situations:  first, to adequately protect existing
   beneficial uses (including high quality waters for which exist-
   ing standards are not stringent enough),  and second, to propose
   upgrading of existing use classifications in order to achieve
   the 1983 goal in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act, wherever attainable.

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

      1) Appropriate Beneficial Uses Should Be Indicated and Categorized;

         Beneficial uses would include water supply, propagation of
      fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural,
      industrial, and other uses of water including navigation.
      The existing water quality supporting these beneficial uses
      would have to be maintained, protected, or improved.  These
      uses should be consistent with overall public health and the
      general welfare as opposed to particular needs for water use
      which might preclude enjoyment of other uses sought by the
      public in general.

      2) Adequate Criteria To Support the Uses Should Be Included
         in the Standards:!

         Both narrative and numerical criteria should be specified
      at a level needed to protect the existing and proposed beneficial
      uses.  The criteria should cover as many pollutant substances
      as are present or potentially present in a stream, and would
      require limitation in order to protect beneficial uses.  The
      values chosen for numerical criteria should be consistent with
      those recommended in the EPA document, Quality Criteria for Water,
      published pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.

      3) Antidegradation Policy:

         The State should determine how existing water quality will
      be protected through implementation of appropriate point and
      nonpoint source controls to be specified in the State
      WQM Plan.  If the State chooses to allow some deterioration
                                 3-13

-------
      of existing water quality, 1t must meet the requirements indicated
      in Part 130.17 as well as the substantive requirements of Federal
      law protecting existing water uses on Federal lands.  The specific
      beneficial uses and necessary criteria to protect these beneficial
      uses should be indicated for waters to be covered by the State's
      antidegradation policy and implementation program.

      4) Other Technical and Procedural  Requirements:

         In addition to the basic characteristics described above, the
      recommendation for standards revision and the development of an
      antidegradation policy should conform with the detailed technical
      and procedural guidance on standards revision contained in Ch.  5.

   b. Relationship between Standards Revision Process  and State WQM Plan
      Development

      General procedures for carrying out both the standards revision
   and plan development process are presented in Ch. 2.3.E and Table 2.2.
   The State is responsible for determining the schedule, interactions,
   and planning responsibilities under these procedures in the State/EPA
   Agreement.  It is essential that the first three standards revision
   steps described for both protecting existing beneficial uses and
   upgrading uses be completed as expeditiously as possible in order to
   provide planning targets for the State WQM Planning Process.  It should
   be possible to complete these basic steps without necessarily completing
   all the technical conditions of the standards revision process.

      In preparing the proposed implementation plans for the standards
   policy, information and analysis on the costs and impacts of the
   standards policies should be developed.  This information should enable
   refining the choices to be made regarding the stringency of anti-
   degradation policy and the feasibility of upgrading use classifications
   in order to attain the 1983 goal.                              •

3. Assess Water Quality Problems and Classify Segments - Elements (b), (d)

   a- Purpose of Water Quality Assessment

      Once the boundaries of a planning area have been established, a
   water quality assessment should be performed to start the planning
   cycle.  As more information becomes available, the  cycle should be
   repeated annually and the assessment revised if necessary.  Much of
   the initial assessment may be done on a preliminary basis.  The main
                               3-14

-------
purpose of the assessment is to act as a first step to begin the
area's Phase II Planning and also to act as a preliminary indication
of the type and extent of the planning which will  be necessary.

   The water quality assessment and segment classification will
provide inputs to all phases of the planning process in general,
and specific inputs to several elements of the State WQM Plan.   The
assessment should provide the description of water quality called
for in Section 305(b) of the Act.  The assessment should also
Identify point and nonpolnt source problem areas which should receive
detailed analyses and waste load allocations.  It will further provide
inputs to the State Strategy and possible revisions to the State-EPA
Agreement on timing and level of detail (S130.ll).

   The assessment and classification process will  be discussed in
the form of the following suggested steps to meet the requirement
of elements (b) and (d):

   1) Obtain Water Quality Data

      The assessment should be based on all existing water quality
   data for the planning area.  Sources for this information may
   include EPA's STORET System, Phase I State WQM plans, the U. S.
   Geological Survey, the Soil Conservation Needs Inventory, Bureau
   of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U. S. Forest
   Service.  EPA has published a nonpolnt source control users
   handbook which provides additional information for nonpolnt source
   data.  Mater quality data should be broken down according to types
   of receiving water.

      Surface waters may be classified as free flowing streams, tidal
   rivers, estuaries, coastal zones, lakes, and reservoirs.  Ground-
   water represents a separate category.

   2) Compare Existing Water Quality to Phase II State Water Quality

      Phase II State WQM Plans are to be based on meeting the 1983 goals
   of the Act.  These goals will be reflected 1n Phase II Water Quality
   Standards.  (See guidance on standards revision, element (e) 1n
   Ch. 3.6.C.2.)
                               3-15

-------
Initial assessments may be conducted prior to revision and
adoption of these standards.  In this case, water quality should
be compared to EPA's Quality Criteria for Water document prepared
pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Act.This document lists
criteria which describe various levels of quality for varying
uses and habitats.  The appropriate criteria should be selected
on the basis of local conditions.

   In comparing existing water quality data to water quality
standards, the need for additional information will undoubtedly
arise.  This need may involve uata for varying flow conditions
(dry weather, wet weather, ice cover, etc.), data for NFS related
criteria (sediment, nutrients, salinity, etc.), or simply additional
data to increase the reliability of decisions made for critical
areas.  Requests for additional data should be prioritized and
transmitted to State monitoring program personnel ($130.30).  Based
on immediately available data, comparisons between existing water
quality and the levels of water quality needed to meet the 1983 goals
should be made wherever possible.

3) Identify Existing and Potential Water Quality Problem Areas

   Water quality problems must be identified.  They should be described
in terms of existing or potential violations of water quality stan-
dards.  Approriate 304(a) criteria may be used in determining problem
areas.  Potential problem areas should also be identified on the basis
of near violations during noncritical periods, trends in historical
water quality data, and areas of projected development or growth
(element (c)).  The provisions of the State antidegradation policy
(element(e)j apply to all waters of the State, but existing and
potential problem areas should be identified for immediate action.

4) Specify Water Quality Standards Parameters which Are Violated

   For each segment where water quality standards are violated, or
expected to be violated, the violated parameters (including thermal)
should be identified.  The severity of the problem should be estimated
from the degree and frequency of violations and the loss of desired
beneficial uses.

5) Identify the Category of Sources which Contribute to Violations

   Point sources contributing to any existing or potential water
quality standard violation should be Identified as municipal or
industrial.  Industrial sources should be further Identified by
industrial category.  Contributing nonpoint sources (including
upstream areas contributing to the build-up of the nonpoint source
problem) should be Identified by category and sub-category where
                            3-16

-------
necessary.  The categories should be consistent with those
Identified in the State-EPA Agreement on timing and level  of detail
(S130.ll).  This step in the assessment process should provide
Inputs to revisions of the agreement as new problems are Identified
and others are found to be' less severe than anticipated.

6) Identify Specific Sources Contributing to Violations

   The assessment should identify specific point sources and limited
geographic areas or owner/operators for nonpolnt sources which
contribute to existing or potential water quality standards violations.

   The sources should be classified according to the flow condition
under which they occur:

   - continuing or seasonal point source
       (example:  industrial source discharging continuously or on
       a seasonal basis)

   - Intermittent point source
       (example:  storm and combined sewers discharge after rainfall)

   - nonpolnt source
       (example:  runoff from agriculture, silviculture, construction,
       and mining)

Point source descriptions should be consistent with the source
Inventory produced under element (c).

7) Determine Segments Requiring Effluent Controls More Stringent than
   Base Levels                                     ~~~"

   Some segments with existing or potential water quality standards
violations will require controls more stringent than BPWTT and BAT
to prevent water quality standards violations.  On a preliminary
basis, these segments should be Identified for further analysis and
classified as water quality segments.  Analyses performed in connec-
tion with Phase I Plans should give good preliminary Information, but
It should be emphasized that all water quality standards criteria
should be considered, Including those related to nonpolnt sources.
Subsequent analyses performed to determine maximum dally loads
(element  (f)) may Indicate that the segment 1s actually effluent
limited and that 1t should be rec1 ass1fled.
                            3-17

-------
      8) Determine Needs for Further Planning

         At this stage 1n planning, the need for more detailed planning
      should be determined based on the following distinctions:

         - Those areas where 1t 1s expected that the effluent limitations
           for point sources required by July 1, 1983 (BAT/BPWTT) will  not
           be sufficient to meet the 1983 water quality goals will  require
           detailed planning for both point and nonpolnt sources.  For
           point sources, waste load allocations will be necessary—see
           element (g).  For nonpolnt sources, a gross allotment for exist-
           ing nonpolnt source pollution loads will  need to be establlshed--
           see element (f).  Detailed planning and establishment of nonpolnt
           source control needs (element (j)) will also be necessary.

         - All other areas will require application  of the effluent limita-
           tions for point sources required by July  1, 1983 (BAT/BPWTT).
           Where the State has established a policy  of antldegradatlon,
           higher levels of abatement than BAT/BPWTT, as well as Best Manage-
           ment Practices for new nonpolnt sources may be required.  However,
           1f the State certifies, pursuant to 8130.11, that no  nonpolnt  source
           problems will exist over the planning period, the requirement  for
           nonpolnt source planning for new sources  will not apply.

      These determinations may result 1n a need to revise the State/EPA
      Agreement (5130.11) regarding the phasing and  level of detail of planning*

4. Estimate Existing/Projected Waste!oads - Element  (c)

   a. Municipal  and Industrial  Inventory

      The Inventories and projections should serve as a starting point
   for consideration of point source dischargers ranking.  They  should be
   of sufficient detail to allow decision makers and the public  necessary
   Information on the relative loading, rankings, and restrictions  on
   sources.  Inventories will also be utilized 1n the development of the
   annual State Strategy.  Therefore,  1t may be appropriate to Include
   sources with no loading, as  1n the case of non-overflow lagoons, 1n
   order that the total scope of water pollution control efforts for
   point sources may be realized.

      In order to account for priorities between basins, States  may choose
   to display the municipal priority 11st for an entire State, Identifying
   those facilities within the priority area.
                                  3-18

-------
b. Existing Land Use Patterns

   Existing land use patterns should be categorized  in  such  a  way
as to be able to assign pollutant loadings  to the categories of
land use.  In the case of point sources of  pollution,  land use
categories should be based on type of activity (e.g.,  commercial,
industrial, residential).  In the case of nonpoint sources,  land
use categories may be based on types of activity and also on the
characteristics of the land on which the activity takes place  (e.g.,
soil, slope, rainfall, cover, etc.), where  appropriate, to aid in
predicting pollutant loading from different land uses.

   The size units of land categorized for purposes of predicting
pollutant generation should vary depending  on the degree to  which
the land is developed and the complexity of the conditions under which
pollutants are generated.  The size units recommended in the criteria
for carrying out requirements of element (c) are for purposes  of
standardizing projections.  Where the State or designated agency has  a
different method for classifying land use and different data bases,  these
may be used.  Official planning agencies should be consulted in obtaining
land use information.

c. Demographic and Economic Projections

   Estimates of the existing population, employment, and land  use  in
the basin should be assembled as a basis for assessing existing patterns
of the generation of pollutants, and as a basis for projecting the
amount and spatial distribution of future wasteloads.   These projec-
tions should cover the next 20 years in five-year increments.   Particular
emphasis should be placed on the effect that implementation  of the State
UQM Plan, local growth policies, plans for  attainment and maintenance
of air quality, and other regional plans for transportation, solid waste
management* water supply, or public Investment may have on  historical
trends of populations, employment, and land use.

   Population data are available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis
(U. S. Department of Commerce).  They should be updated with the most
recent demographic and economic projections developed by the Bureau
of Economic Research Service (U. S. Department of Agriculture), and
with projections used as a basis for State planning for air quality
management.   In general, SERIES E projections developed by BEA, or
comparable projections developed by the State should be used as overall
growth projections for the planning area.  The use of any projections
that deviate  significantly from BEA should be justified.  BEA projections
are available for States, BEA economic regions, Water Resource Council
Regions, and  for Standard Metropolitan Areas, all of which generally
                               3-19

-------
 include more  than a single county.   If it is necessary to dis-
 aggregate  BEA projections, the assumptions made in the disaggregation
 process should  be made explicit.  Historical trends of county popula-
 tion  and employment data are available upon request from BEA.

 d.  Projected  Land Use Patterns

    Using the  land use categories previously developed, and based
 upon  the previous demographic and economic projections, future land
 use changes should be projected.  The projections of land use plan-
 ning  agencies should be consulted in making these projections.
 Assumptions concerning the allocation of future population and em-
 ployment to areas undergoing development should reflect commercial,
 residential,  and industrial land use densities as established in
 approved land use plans (if such plans exist).

 e.  Waste Load Projections

    Based on existing data and projections of population and employment,
 and factors of wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
 existing wasteloads* should be estimated and future wasteloads pro-
 jected for increments of five years, covering land areas and sources
 such as residential, commercial, and industrial.  At a minimum,
 projections of municipal and industrial  wasteloads must be made.
 Wasteload factors should be based on existing wasteload data for
 the area.   Where it is necessary to project industrial  loads, the
 load factors for industrial activities may be based on existing
wasteload data for the area.   Where it is necessary to project
 industrial  loads, the load factors for industrial  activities may be
 based on standard loading factors if specific forecasts cannot be
obtained from industries planning to locate in the area.   From the
wasteload projections, as well  as monitoring information, a materials
 balance (for the planning area) for each significant pollutant should
 be constructed to relate  instream water quality to pollution genera-
 tion and transport where possible.
*The wasteload factors used in the estimations should be specific
enough to aid in the development of alternative abatement measures.
For example, rather than relying on a single loading factor for
agriculture or mining activities, a series of loading factors that
are sensitive to variations in pollution generation should be
developed for various subcategories of these activities.
                         3-20

-------
      While estimates of existing and projected nonpoint source wasteloads
   are not required plan elements, it is recommended that estimates  of
   existing nonpoint source loading be developed.   In the case of non-
   point sources, a materials balance may be based on average factors
   for wasteload generation per unit of area or unit of activity,
   depending on the nature of the problem.  (Refer to Ch. 7).  Gener-
   ally, it is not necessary to attempt to project future nonpoint
   source loads, since the approach taken to nonpoint sources should be
   to establish best management practices for new  nonpoint source acti-
   vities.  An exception perhaps exists where complex decisions regarding
   structural solutions (stormwater treatment, for example) are involved.

5. Estimate Maximum Allowable Load - Element (f)

   In order to classify as water quality or effluent limited, it may
be necessary to estimate the level of pollutant loading that could
be allowed in the segment without violating water  quality standards.
This level could then be compared with the existing and projected waste-
loads for the segment.  However, the calculation of maximum allowable
daily loads may require extensive data collection, analysis, and model-
ing.  The State is- only required to establish maximum allowable loads
where it has classified the segment as water quality limited.  However,
where doubt exists as to proper classification, it is recommended that
maximum allowable loads be established to make classifications more
definite.

   a. Critical Conditions for Calculating Total Maximum Daily Loads

      Critical or design conditions are those stream flow conditions which
   serve as the basis for determining 1f water quality standards can be
   met for each parameter.  Stream flow conditions likely to present the
   greatest stress to fish, shellfish, and aquatic wildlife in the par-
   ticular area should be chosen as critical or design conditions.

      Traditional stream analysis often makes use  of a low flow-high
   temperature design condition (e.g., once in 10-year, 7-day low flow).
   This flow condition may be appropriate for a steady-state stream
   analysis involving constant rates of point source pollutant discharge.
   However,-choice of design flow conditions for point source analysis
   should take account of such factors as ice cover and seasonal point
   source discharge which may cause more severe stress on life in the
   stream than occurs at low flow.
                              3-21

-------
   Wet weather flow conditions may be appropriate for  analysis  of
nonpoint and such intermittent point source discharges as  storm
sewers.  Such factors as intensity and duration of rainfall,  time
since previous rainfall, pollutant accumulation rates  (including
effect of cumulative build-up of pollutants on  bottom  life in
streams), and stream flow previous to rainfall  should  be considered
in selecting design conditions for nonpoint source analysis.

   A range of flow, meterological, and seasonal  conditions should
be considered in choosing design conditions.   In general,  for point
sources, continuous discharges present the worst pollution under
low flow, dry weather conditions.   For pollutants transported in
runoff, critical conditions will be rainfall-related,  but  may occur
under a variety of flow conditions.

   - Dry Weather Conditions

     An analysis of the severity of pollution problems associated
   with dry weather conditions should be conducted.  Dry weather
   flow conditions which are critical for maintaining  biological
   life or recreation in or on the waters should be noted, a  design
   condition for dry weather should be chosen,  and its average  dura-
   tion and frequency of occurrence should be specified.   In  select-
   ing the critical low flow condition, it should be kept  in  mind  that
   emergency procedures may be required to meet water  quality standards
   when the design flow condition is met or exceeded.

   - Wet Weather Conditions

     An analysis of the severity of pollution problems associated
   with wet weather stream conditions should be conducted. Any wet
   weather flow conditions which are critical in terms of  maintaining
   biological life or recreation in or on the waters should be  noted.

      A design condition for wet weather flow conditions should be
   chosen, and its intensity, duration, and antecedent conditions
   specified (e.g., 1/2 inch rain per hour, for two hours, after
   two weeks of dry weather).

   1) Relationship of Maximum Daily Load to Water Quality  Standards

      Each water quality standards parameter (including thermal)
   being violated or expected to be violated in the segment must
   be identified, and the total maximum daily loads of these  pollutants
                               3-22

-------
        which may be added to the water body by all point and nonpoint
        sources without violating the standard at the design condition
        must be determined.*  This determination may require use of math-
        ematical modeling (see discussion of models below).

           Each total load limitation must be at least as stringent as
        necessary to achieve the applicable standard under the critical
        water quality conditions prescribed by the standards, and any
        conditions which should be anticipated in the individual situation,
        such as seasonal waste discharges.  It must include provisions for
        seasonal variation and for a margin of safety which takes into
        account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
        effluents and water quality as well as any uncertainty resulting
        from insufficient data, including data from nonpoint sources.
        Where thermal standards may be violated, thermal loads must be
        separately estimated as provided in S131.11(f)(2).  For all
        parameters, the antidegradation principle applies  (see Ch. 5 of
        these guidelines).

        2) Seasonal Variation and Margin of Safety

           The  purpose of choosing a design condition for  establishing
        total maximum daily loads is to determine  a stream flow condition
        likely  to cause severe stress on living  organisms  and to ensure
        that water quality standards are met  even  under  these conditions.
        Design  conditions should  thus represent  extremes  in pollutant
        stress  on the stream.  It is possible,  however,  that even more
        extreme stresses might occur under more  unusual  climatic conditions.
        Thus,  the choice of a design condition  should include an estimate
        of the  likelihood of more extreme conditions occuring.
*Because of the difficulty of predicting pollutant loading  under wet
weather conditions at the specific time interval  of the design condition,
it may be more practical  to establish the maximum allowable load for runoff
related pollutants over a longer time period such as a month or year.
(This is only feasible, however, for.non-biodegrading pollutant parameters.)
Nevertheless, the long-term'allowable load constraint should be sufficiently
stringent so that peak loading at high flow periods would not be expected
to violate water quality standards.  Longer term allowable loads may be
especially appropriate for bodies of water in which build-up of pollutants
may be a problem (e.g., impoundments, lakes, estuaries, or problems of
benthic deposits in general).  The long-term allowable load should be such
that the natural flushing capacity of the receiving water is not exceeded.
                                     3-23

-------
      The margin of safety, on the other hand, should reflect
   lack of certainty about the characteristics of stream discharges.
   In the case of point sources, there may be considerable variation
   in the rate of loading of the discharge.  The margin of safety
   should cover the possible coincidence of peak loading from these
   sources.  Margins of safety for nonpoint sources should be based
   on the degree to which the magnitude of the existing nonpoint source
   can be calculated and the variability of the rate of loading under
   the design condition for which loads are established.  The calcula-
   tion of a margin of safety for nonpoint sources cannot be based on
   information on variability of individual discharges, but rather
   should be based on observed variability of gross loading from
   nonpoint sources, either in the particular area or as documented
   in the literature.

b. Establishing of Thermal Loads

   Same general guidance as fora,above,

c. Proportion of the Maximum Daily Load for Point and Nonpoint Sources

   For both dry weather and wet weather flow conditions, the maximum
daily load consistent with meeting water quality standards should be
broken down into the proportion of the load (for each parameter) from
point sources (both continuous and Intermittent) and nonpoint sources.
This breakdown requires knowledge of the existing proportion of point
and nonpoint loadings in the segment under the design flow conditions.
Both point and nonpoint source loadings could be reduced proportionally
to a level consistent with the maximum allowable load for all  sources.
However, there are a variety of procedures that could be used in load
allocation.

   A tradeoff between these loadings may be necessary in order to
develop the point source load allocation under element (g).  The
allotment for point sources should be the basis for calculating
individual point source load allocations, while the nonpoint source
allotment should be used to determine the target level of nonpoint
source loading reduction needed for all nonpoint sources.  This
target reduction for nonpoint sources will provide a guide in select-
Ing the degree of abatement needed for each category of existing
nonpoint source generating activities and in choosing Best Management
Practices.

   In establishing the gross allotment for nonpoint sources (which
may contribute substantial amounts of the conservative substances),
1t is necessary to consider to what extent the loads established
                            3-24

-------
under wet weather conditions will  be adequate when the flow in  the
stream subsides and the conservative substances remain as  deposits
in the stream bed.

   An allowance for growth should  be made in the allocation.  The
purpose of alloting some of the pollutant load to growth is to  allow
new municipal and industrial discharges to locate in an area  without
imposing wasteload restrictions that are far more stringent than
those required of existing discharges.

   The allowance that may be reserved for future growth should  be
calculated primarily for point sources, since it is not feasible  to
attempt to relate individual nonpoint source discharging activities
to specific discharge amounts.  The approach that should be taken
toward new nonpoint source discharge is further explained  in  Ch.  7.
In making an allowance for growth, there are a number of important
considerations:

   - The regulatory program required under element (n) should specify
     under what conditions new discharges would be allowed to locate
     in an area and include authority to restrict location of dis-
     charges so as to implement the allowance for growth specified
     in the plan,

   - An allowance for growth in wasteloads must be consistent with
     the policy that the State adopts regarding antidegradation (see
     element (e).

d. Use of Mathematical Models in Establishing Maximum Allowable
   Daily Load?

   Modeling is generally the appropriate method of ascertaining total
maximum dally loads and determining the effects of the proposed
alternative abatement strategies.   The modeling technique selected
depends on the nature and complexity of the problem.  The technique
should represent the minimum level of sophistication needed to  provide
for wasteload allocations.

   Results of modeling may reveal  that previous segment classifications
have not been accurate.  After the modeling has been completed,
segment classifications should be reviewed and revised if necessary.
                           3-25

-------
6. Classify Segments

   Water bodies may be classified as "effluent limited",  where the
base level effluent limitations required under the Act are sufficient
to meet water quality standards.  Where higher levels of  abatement would
be needed to meet standards, the water body should be classified as
"water quality limited".  Segment classification should be based on
comparing the existing and projected loads with the maximum allowable
load.  However, if maximum allowable loads have not been  established,
and the segment meets water quality standards it can be classified as
effluent limited.  This classification cannot be assured  if new waste
loads were introduced to the segment.  The development of abatement
measures for various pollutant sources will depend on the segment classi-
fication.

   a. Effluent Limitations Segments

      In any segments classified as effluent limited, application of
   Best Practicable Treatment is required of all point sources, other
   than publicly-owned treatment works by July 1, 1977, by which time
   owned treatment works are required to apply effluent limitations
   based on secondary treatment.  By July 1, 1983, point  sources
   other than publicly owned treatment works are to utilize Best
   Available Technology (BAT), while by such time, publicly-owned
   treatment works are to utilize Best Practicable Waste  Treatment
   Technology (BPWTT).

      In addition to the requirement to meet BAT/BPWTT, the State may
   establish an antidegradation policy in segments that can be classi-
   fied as effluent limited based on the existing discharges to the
   segment.  An antidegradation policy entails establishing definite
   limitations on further deterioration of water quality  in given stream
   segments.   Where the State seeks to establish such limits,  it should
   classify the segment as water quality limited, since it will  be
   necessary to develop maximum allowable loads and individual  load
   limitations in order to carry out the antidegradation  policy.

      1) Determine Applicable Effluent Limitations

         Abatement plans in effluent limited segments should be based
      on the effluent limitations applying to particular  point sources
      in the segment.

   b.  Water Quality Limited Segments

      In segments where effluent limitations are not sufficient to meet
   water quality standards, an analysis should be carried out  to deter-
   mine the most cost-effective means to reduce waste loads to the level
   required to meet standards.
                              3-26

-------
   The analysis should be completed for each pollutant which is in
violation of water quality standards.  Each source contributing
that pollutant to the segment should be identified and alternative
remedial measures considered.  The final control  strategy for the
segment should reflect a combination of control  methods which will meet
water quality standards.

   1) Select Eligible Sets of Waste Load Reductions to Meet
      Maximum Daily Load'

      The maximum daily load consists of a proportion allowed for
   point sources and an allotment for nonpoint sources.  It is not
   necessary to allocate the allotment for nonpoint sources to par-
   ticular dischargers.  The allotment for nonpoint sources should
   be used as an overall guide in selecting abatement measures for
   such sources.  On the other hand, the proportion of the total
   load that is established for point sources should be allocated to
   individual sources.  There are many possible  sets of individual
   point source load allocations.  Alternative allocations should
   be considered in the process of developing point source abatement
   measures.

      a) Point Source Load Allocation --Element  (g)

         (1) General Procedures for Point Source Load Allocation

             The purpose of waste load allocations is to formally
         state the actions necessary to maintain or improve the
         quality of the affected waters.  State  and Federal water
         quality agencies must have waste load allocations (1) in
         order to establish a basis for assigning effluent limita-
         tions and issuing permits to individual  dischargers in
         order to meet water quality standards and (2) to identify
         and provide a basis for ranking needs of municipalities
         for which planning and possible construction of federally-
         assisted facilities should be initiated within the next
         five years.

             A State WQM Plan only prescribes the abatement strategy
         for individual sources generally.  While the plan does not
         determine detailed engineering specifications for particular
         projects, some knowledge of alternative facilities and non-
         structural alternatives and their associated costs is
         obviously required to develop feasible, effective allocations
         which Implement the water quality standards.
                             3-27

-------
     The allocations for each industrial or municipal dis-
charger should result in a total effluent allowance.  It
should be recognized that restrictions may result in the
discharger being forced to close or reduce its operation
to avoid being subjected to possible enforcement actions
(through action on a permit or other enforcement mechanism
under State law).  To determine feasible limts, the analysis
should consider generally the alternative technical  capa-
bilities available to each discharger.  Where standards
are being violated because of point source discharges, •
the technical requirements for some point sources may be
beyond base  level effluent limitations.  In addition,
existing information on the trade-offs and total costs •
among combinations of alternatives for multiple sources
should be reviewed in search of the mix of processes at
all facilities which will result in the most efficient
overall plan for achieving standards when all sources are
in operation.  Detailed consideration of technical  and
economic trade-offs between alternatives may be derived
from 201 plans or in 208 plans for designated areas.
Information obtained from the detailed analysis in 201
plans should be reflected in State WQM Plans,

    (a) Coordination with Permits

        The Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
    System Permit Program is designed to ensure that pollutant
    dischargers will not exceed prescribed levels.   Since no
    permits may be issued for point sources which are in  con-
    flict with approved State WQM plans, the permit  system
    provides an essential tool for implementation of plans.

        Many first-round municipal permits expire on July 1,
    1977, well before the scheduled completion of most plans.
    Thus, special efforts may be needed to coordinate some
    second-round municipal  permits with ongoing planning.
    This coordination is most important where construction is
    scheduled at a facility within the life of its  second-
    round permit. -
                  3-28

-------
    In each State, the NPDES agency is responsible for
drafting and issuing enforceable NPDES permits.   The NPDES
agency should inform the State and areawide planning
agencies of proposed terms of permits affecting  dischargers
in their planning areas.  (It is the responsibility of each
planning agency to inform the NPDES agency of conflicts
between draft permits and ongoing planning.)  The NPDES
agency should proceed to draft and issue permits prior to
approval of WQM pains.  Where early outputs are  available
from the State or areawide planning agencies, the NPDES
agency should consider them during the drafting  of permits,
especially with respect to municipal facilities  anticipating
construction during the life of the permit.

    The State planning agency is responsible for developing
waste load allocations for all water quality limited seg-
ments.  (The State may delegate this responsibility to
local agencies.)  The State planning agency should also
review draft permits for dischargers in the State and in-
form the NPDES agency of any conflicts with ongoing planning.

    For all dischargers within the boundaries of its area,
designated areawide planning agencies are to:

    .  review all permits drafted by the NPDES agency to
       check for consistency with ongoing planning.  This
       review may take place prior to or concurrent with
       the normal public participation procedures on per-
       mit conditions;

    .  inform the NPDES agency if any draft permit is not
       consistent with approved plans, approved  parts of
       plans, or likely conclusions of the planning process.

    In addition, all areawide planning agencies  whose areas
include water quality limited segments (or parts of water
quality limited segments) for which waste load allocations
already exist should review the waste load allocations, and
transmit the findings of the review to the State and EPA.

    In all areawide planning areas, the designated planning
agencies may also undertake any of the following tasks, but
only if the State specifically delegates the responsibility
for these tasks to the areawide agency:

    .  revision of existing waste load allocations;

    .  preparation of waste load allocations where they are
       needed but do not already exist.
               3-29

-------
(b) Coordination with Facilities Planning
    (40 CFR Part 35. Subpart E)

    Facilities planning involves detailed planning directly
related to the federally assisted construction of municipal
waste treatment facilities.  Such plans provide for cost
effective and environmentally acceptable municipal waste
treatment or control by determining the best practicable
alternative waste management system over time, its geo-
graphic coverage, its service of other area sources,
Including industrial sources, and the nature and amount of
the planned discharge (load reduction achieved).

    The State WQM Plan will provide the following input
to further facilities planning (also refer to element
(h) in Ch. 3.6):

    .  service areas
    .  capacities and population served
    .  load reduction or level of treatment
    .  type of treatment
    .  preliminary cost estimates

    Where detailed facilities planning reveals that infor-
mation from the State WQM Plan does not accurately
reflect particular conditions in an area, the State
should be consulted so that these aspects of the
State WQM Plan can be revised where necessary.

(c) Relation to 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
    in Designated Areas'

    The division of planning responsibility between the
State and designated 208 planning agencies is discussed in
Ch. 2.  The State has ultimate responsibility for developing
and approving waste load allocations but may delegate the
analytic work to other agencies including designated 208
agencies.  Where the 208 designated agencies are revising
or developing waste load allocations,the
State must   ensure that these allocations are consistent
with the total maximum loads for upstream and downstream
segments in the basin in which designated 208 planning is
undertaken.
              3-30

-------
    (d) Nonpolnt Sources

        In allocating pollutant loads among point sources,  the
    pollutant contribution from nonpoint sources should be
    considered to assure that the combined total will  not ex-
    ceed applicable water quality standards.  Such contribution
    should be separately entered in the load allocation display.
    The long term point source load allocations may depend  upon
    the abatement and control alternatives for nonpoint sources.

    (e) Accomodation of Future Growth

        Growth trend information compiled for the segment should
    be considered and a determination made as 'to the load allot-
    ments, if any, to be reserved for future discharges.  The
    allotment  iijus-t  be consistent with continuing achievement
    of standards and prevention of significant water quality
    degradation (see Ch. 5).   The growth allotment should be
    separately displayed in the reported load allocatipn.

    (f) Upstream Contribution

        The amount of pollutants entering the segment from
    upstream should be considered when determining whether  the
    total of proposed individual point and nonpoint allowances
    exceeds the allowable maximum (see element (f)).  For
    purposes of notation and calculation, the estimate of this
    contribution necessarily involves coordination with planning
    for the upstream segment.  The method of coordination,  level
    of certainty regarding the estimated future load, and the
    time span covered is a matter of planning judgement.

(2) Load Allocation Techniques

    Load ..allocation involves planning for many uncertainties such
as uncertainty with respect to growth projections; a lack of
knowledge of cause-effect relationships between effluents and
water quality; pending decisions with respect to the construction
of reservoirs, withdrawals, and other developments which could
significantly affect the assignment of effluent limitations;
and uncertainty as to the quality of the data being employed.  .
Recommendations on how to deal with these problems of uncertain-
ty are as follows:

    (a) Growth Projections

        Unanticipated growth occuring during the period covered
    by the plan could cause water quality conditions to deter-
    iorate.  The classification of some segments may change from
    Effluent Limitation to Water Quality; or, 1n Water Quality
                    3-31

-------
segments higher levels of technology could be required to
achieve standards.  Since the rate of growth of waste loads
is controlled by local decisions with respect to annexa-
tion, industrial expansion, sewer connection permits, etc,,
the plan's load projections and allocations must be reviewed
with the responsible municipalities and industries.  The
regulatory program (see Ch. 9) should provide regulation over
new waste discharging facilities consistent with the State
WQM Plan.

(b) Lack of Cause-Effect Knowledge

    Uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of the cause-effect
relationships among waste loads and water quality must be
taken into account in the waste load allocation process to
provide a basis for specifying tolerance levels for prediction
errors.  Where the cost of errors is relatively small,
factors of safety should be included; where the cost of
errors is large, an ongoing monitoring program should be
developed to improve the quality of the data used in the
waste load allocation process.

(c) Pending Development

    Where there is substantial uncertainty with respect to
pending development decisions, allocations should be made
under both the assumption that development will not occur
and that the development will occur.  Water quality impli-
cations of the proposed development should then be brought
to the attention of the decision-makers concerned with the
project.

(d) Uncertainty as to the Quality of Data

    High levels of confidence in the data should exist where
the costs of possible error are large.  Lower confidence
levels can be tolerated where the resulting costs of error are
small.  Additional confirmation of data should be sought
where the costs of possible error are large.

    Because of the variations that will exist in the quality
of information that can be used in load allocation, there
are no generally applicable load allocation decision rules
that should be applied in all situations.  In general though,
anticipated violations result from one of three situations:
pollution primarily from nonpoint sources; pollution primarily
from treatment plant effluents after the achievement of base
level limitations; or pollution from treatment plant effluents
               3-32

-------
and nonpolnt sources of comparable magnitude.   Allocations
under each of these conditions could be as  follows:

    .  Dominant Nonpoint

       Where water quality standards would  not be achieved
    after the application of Best Available Technology (BAT)
    by industrial  and BPWTT by municipal  point sources,  and
    the remaining  violations are predominantly caused  by
    nonpolnt sources, loads should be allocated to point
    sources according to BAT/BPWTT treatment limitations,
    since water quality would not be significantly im-
    proved through the application of higher effluent
    limitations.  Overall levels of nonpolnt source  load
    reduction needed to meet standards should be established
    (e.g., the gross allotment for nonpolnt sources  referred
    to in element  (f)).  This allotment should be used in
    determining Best Management Practices for nonpolnt
    sources (see Ch. 7).

    .  Dominant Point

       Where pollution from point sources after the  appli-
    cation of BAT/BPWTT is the dominant cause of anticipated
    violations, loads should be allocated to achieve water
    quality standards In a cost-effective manner, including
    allocations requiring higher levels of  treatment or
    control.  In segments where previously  developed plans
    are available  and up to date, these plans  may be suffi-
    cient to assign waste loads to individual  sources.   In
    other segments, evaluation of alternative  load allocation
    strategies is  necessary to determine  the most cost-
    effective strategy for achieving water  quality standards.
    Waste loads should be allocated consistent with  the
    preferred strategy.

    .  Comparable  Point and Nonpolnt

       Where pollution from nonpoint sources after the appli-
    cation of BAT/BPWTT treatment, and pollution from  nonpoint
    sources are of comparable magnitude,  the tradeoffs between
    overall point  and nonpolnt load reduction  should be  con-
    sidered, and a gross allotment for nonpolnt sources
    established, as discussed in regard to  dominant  nonpolnt
    areas.

       Evaluation  of tradeoffs between point and nonpolnt source
    abatement should be carried out only  at the level  of
    detail required to execute the waste  load allocation process.
               3-33

-------
    The evaluation should not reach the level  of engineering
    design, but should consider the nonstructural  alternatives.

       Whatever the cause of water quality problems,  the
    following assumptions on low flow and wet  weather flow
    conditions may need to be employed in allocating  to
    point sources and establishing the gross allotment for
    nonpoint sources.

(e) Low Flow Conditions

    Continuous or seasonal point source allocations should
generally be made for dry weather low flow conditions, or
whatever other critical design condition is chosen for es-
tablishing maximum allowable daily loads.

    Intermittent point sources and nonpoint sources that  are
rainfall related may not be present under low  flow conditions.
Therefore, the load allocation to point sources under low
flow conditions will be similar to the situation described as
dominant point source above.

    Nevertheless, at low flow there may be nonpoint source
problems due to in-stream deposits of material accumulated
from point and nonpoint sources.  To the extent that the  low
flow water quality problem is caused by the deposit of mater-
ial under high flow conditions from nonpoint sources, the
reduction of this load will help alleviate the problem.  If
this is the case, the point source load allocation options
may be similar to those described as comparable point and
nonpoint above.

(f) Wet Weather Flow Conditions

    Continuous or seasonal point source allocations should
first be established for low flow conditions.   These allo-
cations should be maintained for high flow conditions unless
it 1s possible to write permit conditions that would allow
waste loads to vary depending on stream flow.

    Assuming a constant load allocation for point sources
(based on low flow), the waste load reduction needed to
meet standards under wet weather flow conditions will have
to be borne by abatement of nonpoint sources.   In other words,
some of the remaining  portion of the maximum daily load for
the stream, after imposition of waste load allocation for
point sources (based on low flow) will be equivalent to the
gross allotment for nonpoint sources.  Further guidance on
how to determine nonpoint  source abatement approaches to meet
this gross allotment is provided in Ch. 7.
              3-34

-------
      (3) Relationship Between Individual  Load Allocations and
          Maximum Dally Load to the Segments"

          Because a segment may encompass  considerable stream length,
      It 1s possible that there will be variation In the assimilative
      capacity, especially for biodegradable pollutants, depending on
      the location of the discharge points along the segment.  In  such
      cases, mathematical models should be used to determine  whether
      the pollutant loadings are compatible with meeting water quality
      standards at each discharge point.  In some cases, the  sum of the
      individual discharges may exceed the maximum allowable  daily load.
      If this proves to be the case, the maximum allowable load should
      be revised to account for the configuration of discharges that
      may be proposed.

      (4) Consistency of Growth Assumptions; Implementation of
          Allowance for Growth"

          The growth allowance used 1n the waste load allocation pro-
      cess  must  be compatible with the growth projections made under
      element (c).  A regulatory program (element (n) below)  should
      be developed to assure that any new  discharges Introduced into
      the area are within the allowance for growth of wasteloads.

      (5) Relationship with Permits

          After wasteload allocations have been established,  the target
      abatement dates and schedules of compliance to include  as terms
      in permits should be described under element (m) below.

2) Test Sets of Wasteload Reductions to Determine Consistency

   The analytic model discussed earlier in this chapter should be  used
to determine whether wasteload allocations for continuous point sources
enable meeting standards.  The choice of a tolerance level and the
rationale for that choice should be expHcity stated.

   It Is not necessary and probably not feasible to attempt to model
the receiving water Impact of the load reductions assigned to Inter-
mittent point sources and nonpoint sources, as this may require highly
sophisticated analytic modeling and more extensive data requirements
than can be met during the planning period.  It is only necessary  to
determine whether the predicted load reductions for Intermittent point
and nonpoint sources enable meeting the single gross allotment or
target abatement level for these sources.

   Because some proportion of wasteloads may be reserved to allow  for
future growth 1n the area, It is important that the wasteload alloca-
tion process be undertaken in close coordination with agencies possess-
ing land use planning and control authority.  Management of new waste-
load discharges 1n the area should be carried out through the regulatory
program for implementing the plan (see Ch. 9).
                         3-35

-------
D. Choose Approach (and Level of Detail) for Relating Water Quality
   Constraints to Abatement Measures

   After the water quality analysis has been conducted, it should be possible
to specify the categories of sources for which detailed control  plans are
needed.  As explained in Chapter 3.3.C, where it is not clearly  established
that particular problems exist or that implementation measures can be under-
taken in the next five years, the implementation program for these sources
(elements (h)-(o)) can be developed in the form of an assessment of control
needs.  At this point in the planning process, decisions can be  made con-
cerning the level of detail in which abatement measures can be made concerning
the level of detail in which abatement measures will  be developed.

   Maximum allowable daily loads (MAL) for each pollutant parameter and  each
segment provide a total load constraint which can be met through many
possible combinations of load reductions from different sources.   There  are
basically two approaches that can be used to match up the different possible
load reduction sets to the maximum allowable daily load:

   1. Area Approach:  Compare the alternative abatement measures  for the
   entire area in order to meet the MAL for each parameter in the most
   cost-effective manner.

      The area approach may enable an optimal  selection of controls.   This
   approach is appropriate where many sources are suspected of contributing
   to a particular pollutant parameter.  Urban concentrations are likely to
   present complex sources of pollution.  To assign a certain load reduction
   at low flow to municipal sources and another to industrial sources without
   considering the most cost-effective load reduction could lead to an uneco-
   nomic solution.  In fact, the point source load allocation program normally
   does consider alternative reductions by different point sources.   However,
   the area approach  could also be applied to nonpoint sources.   For example,
   load reductions assigned at wet weather flows to stormwater and rural
   runoff could be varied in order to choose the least cost solution  for
   reducing the existing sediment problem.  The main shortcoming of this
   approach is that it requires a great deal  of information on the relative
   loading from different sources to be available before load reductions can
   be assigned to the sources.

   2. Category Approach;  Allocate a proportion of the MAL for each parameter
   to the various source categories.  Within a particular source category,
   the most cost-effective combination of controls would be chosen.

      The category by category approach may be more appropriate  where particu-
   lar categories of sources contribute to violations of given parameters.
   The reduction of the loading of the violated parameter can readily be
   assigned to a few categories of sources according to simple allocation
   techniques.  More  guidance on these techniques is  presented in Ch.  7.
                                 3-36

-------
a. Establish Categories

   In order to isolate particular pollution problems and concentrate
planning efforts on these problems, it is important to define the
spectrum of possible problems of which a particular category of sources
is a part.  A classification system should therefore be developed to
cover all pollution problems.  In the case of municipal and industrial
sources, the classification is straightforward.   For runoff related
sources, a system of classification should be developed based on the
factors that influence, pollution generation—both natural  features and
man-made activities.  Classification of nonpoint sources is further
discussed in Ch. 7.

b. Allocate Waste Load Reductions from Step C.6. to Each
   Category of Source?

   A number of decision rules can be employed 1n allocating waste load
reductions to particular categories and subcategories of pollution
sources:

   1) Proportional  Reduction

      This approach would Involve dividing the allowable load among all
   pollution-generating categories 1n proportion to the existing extent
   of activity of the various categories.   For example, the nonpoint
   source allotment would be allocated in proportion to area occupied
   by nonpoint source activities.  The p6lnt source allotment would be
   allocated 1n proportion to existing rate of pollutant loading,
   existing dollar production level, or some other equitable basis.
   The advantage of this approach 1s the stress  on equity;  the disad-
   vantage 1s that It requires extensive Information and relies on an
   arbitrary basis for allocation.

   2) Equal  Relative Reduction Approach

      This approach involves determining a relative reduction from
   existing Instream pollutant loads by all  sources to meet the maximum
   allowable load for a particular parameter.  This relative reduction
   level would be applied 1n relation to the existing rate  of pollution
   generation by each category in order to determine load reductions
   for the category.  The advantage of this  approach 1s that 1t is simple
   and equitable.  The disadvantage Is that  1t may not be very efficient
   for all polluters to reduce their pollution loading by the same pro-
   portion.

   3) Best Technology Approach

      This approach Involves selecting the degree of reduction for each
                           3-37

-------
         category of sources based on the abatement efficiency of the  tech-
         nology for each category.  If reduction levels  for all  sources were
         determined by this approach, they might not correspond  to the max-
         imum daily load for a segment.   Upward or downward revisions  in
         abatement requirements would need to be made after assessing  the
         impact of applying the best technologies for each category of sources.
         The advantage of this approach  is that it allocates the burden of
         cleanup to those categories or  sources having the technical capa-
         bility to assume the burden. The disadvantage  is that  the best
         technology does not necessarily correspond to the pollution abatement
         needs of particular areas.

         More complex decision rules combining proportional  reduction  with
      specified base levels of reduction for each category could be formulated.
      The principal problem in allocating waste load reductions, however,  is
      the uncertainty inherent in predicting the magnitude of pollution prob-
      lems with or without control.  Methods for predicting pollution  loading
      in runoff are discussed in Ch. 7.   The advantages  and limitations of
      these methods should be considered in choosing decision rules for allo-
      cating load reduction to various categories of pollutant sources.

         Once decision rules have been chosen for allocating load reduction,
      reduction levels should be assigned for each parameter to  each category
      (and sub-category) of sources.  It is also possible  that the choice
      will be made to allocate load reductions on a category by  category basis
      only to sources occur!ng under wet weather flow conditions.   This could
      be accomplished by making a "gross allotment" of the MAL between point
      and nonpoint sources and following the area approach to allocate loads
      to individual point sources and the category by category approach to
      allocate load reduction to nonpoint sources.

E. Develop Abatement Plans

   1. Area Approach

      a. Determine Alternative Area Sub-Plans to Meet Eligible Load
         Reductions/Effluent Limitations

         Chapters 6-8 provide a framework for developing pollution control
      options for point and nonpoint sources.  The alternatives  that are
      presented as the result of detailed planning for point and nonpoint
      sources*are referred to as subplans.  These subplans encompass elements
      (h)-(m) of the required plan elements.  These elements are described
      on pages 3-56 ff.

         In order to develop subplans, it is helpful  to  examine  the patterns
      of existing and projected wasteloads by display on land use  maps.
      Alternatives for point and nonpoint source control,  and means to imple-
      ment these controls, may be developed through an examination of  alterna-
      tive land use and land management  practices.  (See Ch. 6.)  It should
      be emphasized that the detailed land use-water quality analysis  described
      in Ch. 6 is an optional approach for development of  abatement measures.


                                  3-38

-------
    Subplans may be broken into three major types according to the
category of sources and design conditions to which they apply:

    1) Continuous or Seasonal Point Source Subplans

      Continuous point sources are municipal treatment works and indus-
    trial point sources.  Some industrial point sources may discharge on
    a seasonal basis.  Detail on preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 8.

    2) Intermittent Point Source Subplans

      Intermittent point sources are wet weather related point sources
    such as combined sewer overflows.  Detail on preparing this subplan-is
    provided in Chapters 6, 7 and 8.

    3) Nonpoint Source Subplans

      Nonpoint sources are primarily wet weather related.  Detail on
   •preparing this subplan is provided in Ch. 7.

    For purposes of comparing alternatives, each subplan should furnish
information on the following (this information encompasses some of the
required information for each plan element):

    .  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed in
      appropriate units;

    .  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present value
      or average equivalent value of capital and operating costs for
      the overall  alternative and subsystem components;

    .  Information on the reliability of each alternative arid subsystem
      included in each alternative;

    .  Significant environmental  effects of each alternative consistent
      with NEPA procedures, including a specific statement on future
      development impact;

    .  Contribution of each alternative to other water-related goals of
      the planning area.

b. Screen Subplans

   Control  options under each subplan are numerous.  Thus, the number of
possible subplans  may be so great as to impede consideration of logical
alternatives.   Since the only subplans that are viable are those which
the management agency(s) can implement, it is important at this stage to
integrate the results of management planning with those of technical
planning.
                            3-39

-------
   c. Combine Subplans Into Alternative Plans

      At this step, viable subplans should be combined into alternative
   technical plans for final evaluation and selection.  This is  not
   meant to preclude reconsidering options previously screened out,
   but merely to provide a convenient form of organizing a  vast  number of
   potential control alternatives into a reasonable number  to evaluate.

2. Category Approach

   a. Develop Alternative Controls for Each Category of Sources
      to Meet Load Reductions/Effluent Limitations

      For each category to which a load reduction has been  assigned,
   alternative control plans should be prepared.  These control  plans
   should provide the specific information required under elements
   (h)-(l), which are further discussed below.   For purposes of  com-
   paring alternatives, such control plans should furnish information  on
   the following (this information encompasses  some of the  required
   information for each plan element):

      .  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed in
         appropriate units;

      .  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present value
         or average equivalent value of capital  and operating costs for
         the overall alternative and subsystem components;

      .  Information on the .reliability of each alternative and  subsystem
         included in each alternative;

      .  Significant environmental effects of each  alternative consistent
         with NEPA procedures, including a specific statement on future
         development impact;

      .  Contribution of each alternative to other  water-related goals
         of the planning area.

      These subplans encompass elements (h)-(m) of  the required  plan
   elements.  Guidance on these elements is provided below.  It  should
   be noted, however, that requirements of the regulation must be met
   under both the area approach as well as the category approach.

      1) Municipal Facilities Needs — Element (h)

         Guidance is provided 1n Chapter 8.
                               3-40

-------
2) Industrial Facilities Needs  — Element (i)

   Guidance is provided in Chapter 8.

3) Nonpoint Source Control Needs  — Element (j)

   a) Summary of Needs

      SI31.11 (j)0) calls for a summary of the nonpoint  source control
   needs  of a State.  This statement of needs should  be  broken down by
   type of nonpoint source problem (the categories  established under
   element (d)) and planning area or subarea as  delineated  in element
   (a).  This summary should be based  on the analyses and evaluations
   discussed in (b) and (c) below.

   b) Nonpoint Source Analysis  and Evaluation

      For each nonpoint source  category, in each planning area,
   there  should be an analysis  of the  alternative control measures
   from which Best Management Practices could be chosen.  A procedure
   for choosing Best Management Practices is presented in detail  in
   Ch. 7.  The procedure calls  for a distinction between new and
   existing nonpoint sources in each category.   The distinction
   between "existing" and "new" nonpoint source  activities  will be
   left to the discretion of the  State.  General guidance on how  this
   distinction could be made in practical  terms  is  presented in
   Ch. 7.  The rationale for this distinction is that it is prac-
   tically impossible to anticipate the magnitude of future nonpoint
   sources.  Thus, controls for existing nonpoint sources should  be
   related to a gross allotment for such sources, whereas controls
   for new nonpoint sources should be  set at a level which would
   protect water quality from further  deterioration.  The analyses
   of nonpoint source controls  should  present alternatives  for both
   new and existing sources.  For each alternative, the  information
   listed in the regulation and criteria for meeting the regulation
   should be presented.  Guidance on developing  regulatory  programs
   and choosing implementing agencies  is presented  in Ch. 9.

   c) Nonpoint Source Categories

      The nonpoint source categories established in the Act and the
   Part 131 regulations should  be used as  a basis for establishing
   the categories of nonpoint sources  for which  planning will be
   undertaken.   However, since  Section 201(c) provides a general  man-
   date for 208 planning to "provide control and treatment  of all
   point  and nonpoint source of pollution, including in place or
   accumulated pollution sources,"  these categories should  not be
                         3-41

-------
   interpreted to exclude any nonpoint source problems.  If needed
   to carry out the mandate of Section 201(c), additional  categories
   or subcategories of nonpoint sources should be established for
   purposes of planning.  Chapter 7 provides guidance on how to
   establish nonpoint source categories for purposes of planning.

4) Residual Waste Control Needs; Land Disposal Needs — Element (k)

   a) Disposal or Utilization of Residuals from Treatment Processes

      The municipal and industrial  needs assessment should include a
   preliminary identification of the residual waste disposal or util-
   ization option for each facility.  Further guidance is contained
   in Chs. 7 and 8.

   b) Land Disposal of Pollutants

      The nonpoint source planning process should include establish-
   ment of Best Management Practices for land disposal of pollutants,
   for both existing and new sources in this category.  Refer to
   Ch. 7 for further guidance.

5) Urban and Industrial Stormwater Systems Needs -- Element (1)

   a) Analysis of Existing Problems

      The general procedure for nonpoint source planning is presented
   in Ch. 7.

   b) Analysis of New Stormwater Systems

      Assuming that modification of the existing drainage pattern is
   categorized as a "new" nonpoint source category by the State* the
   procedure for establishing Best Management Practices for new non-
   point sources (Ch. 7) should be followed.  Guidance on regulatory
   programs for implementing controls is found in Ch. 9.

   c) Cost Estimates

      The cost estimates should be of a generalized nature since
   the assessment of Stormwater needs and performance criteria for
   new systems will not include detailed engineering designs.  The
   cost estimates need only be detailed enough to enable decisions
   concerning cost effectiveness of various  alternatives.   See
   Ch. 11 for further information on Stormwater abatement cost
   estimates.
                            3-42

-------
6)  Target Abatement Dates (Schedules of Compliance ~-  Element  (m)

    a)  Effluent Limitations

        Effluent limitations must be established  for
    significant point sources in any water quality  segment.
    Limitations must be set forth for every pollutant discharged
    by the source.   Effluent limitations established in any
    current permit  must be at least as stringent  as necessary
    to meet the requirements of the Act and applicable  regula-
    tions, and, for parameters for which load  allocations  are
    required, the load allocations established for  each source.

       The Administrator is publishing effluent guidelines defining
    Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology for municipal facil-
    ities and Best  Available Technology for various classes  and
    categories of industrial  point sources.  Copies of  the guide-
    lines and information regarding them may be obtained from
    the Regional  Administrator.   Stricter than base level  limita-
    tions must be developed where the base level  restrictions
    would not result in compliance with the source's load
    allocation and  with water quality standards,

   b) Target Abatement Dates

      Target abatement dates or schedules of compliance must be
   determined for point sources which are not currently in compliance
   with the effluent limitations.  If the State is  participating in
   the NPDES, target dates for the processing of permits for any
   source which will not have been processed at the time of the
   State WQM Plan completion must also be set forth.

      Major milestone dates from the schedules of compliance es-
   tablished by current NPDES permits must be included 1n the
   segment analysis.  Target abatement dates must be developed for
   all other significant sources and for any source having a permit
   with an incomplete schedule.

      Each schedule of compliance or target abatement date should
   reflect stringent performance goals to assure implementation of
   the plan's required effluent limitations 1n the  shortest prac-
   ticable time.  However, all dates established by the plan must
   be realistic and feasible.  The schedules or targets should
   provide for timely implementation of statutory goals.
                          3-43

-------
3.7 Management Planning

    A.  Purpose

       The key implementation and enforcement provisions  for State WQM Plans  are
    delineated in Section 208(b)(2)(c)  and (c)(2)  of the  Act.   The Act requires
    that authority to carry out the above provisions be vested in  a designated
    agency or agencies within a planning area.  The purpose of management  plan-
    ning is to select a management agency or agencies and to develop appropriate
    institutional arrangements through  which the plan can be implemented.
    Institutional arrangements are the  formal structure of affected state
    and local units of government for planning and implementing a  water
    quality management plan.

       The Act clearly specifies the responsibilities and functions of the
    management agency(s).  The criteria that should be used to determine whether
    the management agency(s) can properly carry out these responsibilities are:

       .  adequate legal  authority
       .  adequate financial capacity

       The Act does not,  however, stipulate what institutional  arrangements
 .   should be utilized to enable plan implementation.  Criteria for evaluating
    the adequacy of the management agency(s) and institutional  arrangements
    should be:

       .  Practicability — To what extent do institutional arrangements rely
       on existing water quality management agencies?  Are the institutional
       arrangements politically feasible?

       .  Managerial  Capacity -- To what extent do institutional arrangements
       provide for program oversight including procedures for resolving con-
       flicts and cooperating with other areawide  planning activities?

       .  Public Accountability -- To what extent  do institutional  arrangements
       provide for a  decision-making process accountable  to the area electorate?

       1. Functions of Management Agencies

          To ensure plan  implementation, the management agency(s)  and the
       supporting institutional  arrangements need  to carry out the following
       functions:
                                      3-44

-------
    a. General  Management Program

       One of the most important functions  of management  agency(s)  is
    to provide general direction for the  implementation of the  plan.
    The management responsibilities  involved  in  directing plan  imple-
    mentation should include:

       .   program supervision  and coordination,  e.g., ensuring  that the
       program is being implemented, that the program is  being  coordin-
       ated with  other programs  in the  area,  and that the performance of
       the program is  being  continually assessed;

       .   continuous planning, e.g., updating the plan and implementation
       mechanisms as required  by changing conditions;

       .   fiscal  management, e.g., assuring that adequate resources are
       provided to implement the regulatory and  waste management programs as
       well  as  to finance  the  administration  and continuous planning func-
       tions of the management agency(s).

    b.  Regulatory Program

       Authority  to carry  out the  regulatory  program mandated in Section
    208(b)(2)(C)  is required.  In addition to authority to regulate
    existing and  new pollution sources, administrative procedures and
    agencies responsible for implementing the regulation  need to be
    specified.  The regulatory program will be one of the vehicles  for enforc-
    ing the  abatement  measures that  have  been developed through the tech-
    nical  planning process.  In  addition  to direct regulation, appropriate
    tax policies  should be developed to complement the regulatory program.

    c. Waste Treatment Program

      The legal  authority and financial capacity needed  for operating,
    maintaining,  and constructing waste treatment works and otherwise
    carrying out  a  plan 1s described 1n Section 208(c)(2)  of the Act. A
    waste treatment  program includes all the capital  construction res-
    ponsibilities  to carry out a plan, such as publicly owned treatment
    works as well  as all other public sector programs for abating pollution
    which may include residual  waste management, stormwater management,
    and nonpoint  source management.

2.  Management Agenc.y(s) and Institutional Arrangements  Capable of
    Implementing the Plan"            :

    The great variety of local  Institutions, practices,  and experience
dictates that a pragmatic strategy be followed in selecting management
agency(s) and formulating institutional arrangements.   The arrangements
may be comprised of one or more agencies, which may  be  existing or
                              3-45

-------
   newly created and local, regional, or statewide in jurisdiction, and
   may also rely on intergovernmental agreements.

      Although care should be taken to ensure that the institutional
   arrangements fit the local situation, excessive fragmentation of auth-
   ority and responsibility should be avoided.  The greater the number of
   agencies involved in implementing the plan, the greater the need to
   coordinate between the agencies.  The complexity of institutional
   arrangement should not prevent a clear delineation of the decision-making
   process used to implement the plan.  In particular, there should be an
   explicit arrangement for ensuring overall supervision and enforcement of
   the management plan.

B. Define Characteristics of the Regulatory Program and Management Agency(sJ
   and Institutional Arrangements to Meet Requirements of the Act

   The first step in management planning should be to determine the techni-
cal solutions to water quality problems that have been proposed for the
area.  For each technical solution, there should be adequate authority to
implement the solution (through regulatory and waste treatment programs),
proper financial arrangements and agency(s) responsible for Implementing
the solution.  A description should be made of the needed authority, finan-
cial, and management arrangements as required by the Act and Part 131
regulations, in terms of the particular technical solutions proposed for
the planning area.  This description should be based on meeting the pro-
visions of elements (n) and (o) of 40 CFR, Part 131.11 (see pages 3-56 ff).
The description may be arranged under the following headings:

   -  Legal authority and financial capacity for:

      .  General management program;
      .  Regulatory program;
      .  Waste treatment program.

   -  Management structure and institutional arrangements to carry out
   functions.

   1. Regulatory Program — Element (n)

      Chapter 9 provides overall guidance on how to develop regulatory
   programs — from inventorying existing regulations to developing new
   regulatory proposals.  The following guidance pertains to various pro-
   visions of the regulation:
                                  3-46

-------
 a.  Establishment of Areawlde Regulatory Programs (Existing Sources)

    In developing regulatory programs, it is important to ensure an
 areawide approach; that is, similar problems should have similar
 solutions.  This necessitates coordination between planning done for
 similar problems.

    Although this does not necessarily require a common management
 agency for each problem, there should also be coordination between
 management agencies that are implementing controls for similar
 problems.

    To document the need for the regulatory controls that are chosen,
 the State Water Quality Management Plan should relate the maximum
 allowable pollutant load identified in element (f) to the regulatory
 controls that are chosen to reduce existing levels of pollutant load-
 ing to a level consistent with the water quality goals.  Regulatory
 controls should be established for each category of sources.

    The following characteristics of regulatory programs (for existing
 and new sources) are discussed further in Ch.  9:

    -  overall legal authority to regulate the  activity (e.g., the
    police powers of the State or specific enabling law);

    -  a specific form of regulation for existing and new polluting
    activities (e.g., permit, license, land use control) applicable
    to specified parties under specified conditions;

    -  an administrative agency to supervise and enforce Implementation
    of the regulation;

    -  technical  specifications regarding the type of abatement measure
    required for each source (e.g., Best Management Practices for
    nonpoint sources, residual  waste, land disposal, and new stormwater
    systems.)

    -  adequate due process requirements to safeguard the interests of
   the regulated parties (e.g., adequate notice, hearings,  appeals.)

b. Pretreatment Regulatory Program

   Section 307 of the Act concerns pretreatment requirements governing
discharge of pollutants Into publicly owned waste treatment works.
Regulations for Section 307 should be consulted in developing local
pretreatment regulatory programs.
                            3-47

-------
      In addition to the national pretreatment requirements, an analysis
   should be conducted of acceptable levels of influent quality for dis-
   charges into the particular treatment plants in the planning area.   It
   is particularly important to consider what tolerance the treatment
   processes have for toxic waste loads.  It is also important to con-
   sider the quality of the sludge from the treatment plants, since
   the presence of toxics and heavy metals may restrict beneficial  uses
   of sludge.

      The characteristics of a regulatory program needed to meet the
   requirements are discussed further in Ch. 9.

   c. Establishment of Areawide Regulatory Program (New Sources)

      The choice of regulatory controls for new pollutant sources should
   be based on the abatement needs for point sources needed to meet rele-
   vant waste load limitations, and the degree of abatement of nonpoiiit
   sources needed to protect water quality from further deterioration.
   The procedure for selecting nonpoint source controls for new sources
   is discussed in Ch. 7.

      The characteristics of a regulatory program needed to meet the
   requirements are discussed'further in Ch. 9.

   d. Choice of Best Management Practices

      The documentation of the degree of abatement needed for controls for
   existing point and nonpoint sources is discussed above.  In addition to
   documenting that Best Management Practices have been chosen, the plan
   should describe the relationship between Best Management Practices  for
   different categories of sources and the State's ongoing monitoring  pro-
   gram.  The monitoring program should provide information that can be
   used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMP's adopted by the State.

2. Implementing and Operating Agencies — Element (o)

   a. Agencies Responsible for Carrying out Plan Elements

      The plans will generally include the following ways of imple-
   menting pollution abatement:

      .*  Waste treatment plant construction;
      .   Municipal and industrial effluent limitations, pretreatment
         standards, and sewer use regulations;
      .   Best Management Practices for new and existing nonpoint sources,
         urban runoff, residual wastes, and land disposal.
                               3-48

-------
         Each of these means will require designating a management agency or
      agencies to implement the abatement requirements.  In general, munici-
      pal and special sewerage districts should be chosen to implement the
      facilities operation and construction component of the plan; the State
      should assure that municipal and industrial effluent limitations are
      followed; the jurisdictions and agency(s) responsible for facilities
      operation and construction should develop and enforce pretreatment
      regulation and regulation of sewer hook-ups; a combination of local,
      county, State, and special purposes agencies should be responsible
      for developing and implementing regulations requiring BMPs.   •

         The institutional structure and arrangements for supervising and
      carrying out the plan are further discussed in Ch. 9.

      b. Authority and Financial Capacity of Management Agencies

         Chapters 9 and 10 provides more detailed discussion of legal auth-
      ority and financial capacity of management agencies.

C. Conduct Management Analysis

   The next step in the management planning process should be an analysis of
the area's experience in water quality management.  The purpose of this
analysis will be to evaluate the capability within the area to meet the man-
agement requirements of Section 208 and to develop an understanding of what
is needed to satisfy these requirements.  Some of the analysis will have
been accomplished in the designation and grant application stages.  During
the planning process, this preliminary assessment should be reviewed and,
where necessary, expanded to assure its accuracy and thoroughness.  The
following analyses should be provided:

   1. An assessment of the specific legal  authority required under Subsection
   208(c)(2) and 208(b)(2)(C) to carry out the regulatory and waste manage-
   ment programs and an approach for acquiring such authority.  The approach
   should delineate what enabling or supplemental legislation would be
   necessary, the type of contractual  agreements that might be employed, and
   the possibility for adapting to existing laws.  In instances where exist-
   ing laws might be broadly interpreted as furnishing the required authority,
   but where such interpretation may be subject to dispute, it would be best
   to seek specific statutory sanction.

   2. An evaluation of existing financial  arrangements to determine what
   changes will  be necessary to provide affected agencies with the capacity
   to meet financial  needs and obligations for carrying out general  manage-
   ment responsibilities, the regulatory program, and waste management
   program.
                                  3-49

-------
       3. An assessment of the potential of existing institutions in the area
       to perform the required functions.  An overall assessment should be
       made of the area's potential for regional water quality management.
       This evaluation should seek to assess the effectiveness of regional
       management to date and the strength of the area's traditions and commit-
       ment to regional approaches.  The evaluation should incorporate an
       appraisal of the relationships between federally funded regional planning
       authorities and regional or local water quality management agencies such
       as transportation, land disposal of wastes, land use planning, and water
       supply where such agency activities affect water quality.  The purpose of
       the evaluation is to, help ensure that implementation plans are constructed
       on a realistic foundation which reflects the area's experience in region-
       alized management.

    D. Develop Alternative Management Plans

       Upon completion of the management analysis, alternative management plans
    reflecting the results of this analysis should be developed.  These manage-
    ment plans should meet the provisions for elements (n) and (o) of 40 CFR
    Part 131.  In most cases, only a limited number'of alternatives will be
    appropriate.  Close coordination with the technical planning component of
    the planning process will be necessary throughout this stage to ensure
    that the management alternatives developed are consistent with alternative
    technical plans.  As an initial step in the formulation of management alter-
    natives, the broad options available should be reviewed and assessed.  Care-
    ful consideration should be given to the advantages and constraints of these
    options in relation to the designated areas.  Once developed, the implemen-
    tation alternatives should be screened in terms of their feasibility accord-
    ing to the criteria discussed previously.  An overall assessment of the
    implementation feasibility of the alternatives for management agency(s) and
    institutional arrangements should be based on all the criteria discussed.
                              >
3.8 Combined Plan Evaluation and Selection

    The regulations on State WQM Plans do not specifically require that alterna-
tive plans be developed and evaluated.  However, given the complexity of the
choices involved in developing State WQM Plans, it Is recommended that a sys-
tematic evaluation of alternatives be undertaken where necessary.  This section
of the planning process suggests procedures for plan evaluation and selection.

    A. Combine Alternative Technical Plans that Meet Standards with
       Alternative Management Plan Corresponding to Technical Plan?

       Technical and management planning should yield a series of technical plans
    for which an alternative management plan to implement the technical plan has
    been presented.  At this step, the alternative technical plans should be
                                      3-50

-------
simply combined.

   For each alternative technical and management plan that is combined into an
alternative State WQM Plan, sufficient detail concerning the schedule of
actions to be undertaken should be provided to enable accurate evaluation
of the plan in terms of meeting 1983 water quality goals.

B. Compile Information on Alternative Plans

   The following information on the plans should be assembled for comparison
of alternatives:

   1. Contribution to Water Quality and Other Related Water Management Goals
   of the Area (Information from Chapters 5-8);

   2. Technical Reliability (Information from Chapters 7-8);

   3. Monetary Costs (Information from Chapters 7-8; methodology for cost
   evaluation provided in Chapter 11);

   4. Environmental Effects (Information from Chapters 7-8, methodology
   for environmental evaluation provided in Chapter 13);

   5. Economic and Social Effects (Methodology for evaluation of economic
   and social  effects provided in Chapter 13);

   6. Implementation Feasibility (Information from Chapters 9 and 10);

   7. Public Acceptability (Guidance on means to assure public involvement
   in the planning process provided in Chapter 4).

   Much of the above information will  have been developed in  the planning
process; that which has not should be compiled in order to be able to proceed
to final plan  selection.  Information  may be conveniently assembled on tables
like those presented in Chapter 14.

   The format  and procedures provided in Chapter 13 for compiling information on
alternative plans is specifically designed to fulfill  the need for the appli-
cant to prepare an environmental assessment on the  plan.  Chapter 14 provides
optional guidance on plan evaluation and selection.

C. Compare Alternative Plans and Select Final  Plan

   1. Effects  of Alternative Plans

      Comparison of alternatives and selection of a final plan should be
   the product of public deliberation  over the merits  of the  various plans
   under consideration.  A discussion  of means to involve the public in
                                  3-51

-------
       the overall planning process is provided in Chapter 4.  Suggested procedures
       for public involvement in selection of the final plan are provided in
       Chapter 14.

       2. Vary Alternatives if Necessary for Final Selection

          To achieve the most desirable overall plan, a variant or composite of,
       plans originally proposed could be considered,

       3. Prepare Environmental Assessment of Plan;  Environmental. Social.
          Economic Impact — Element (p)

          Chapter 13 provides guidance on impact assessment.  This guidance
       should be followed to complete the requirements of element (p)
       of a State WQM Plan.

    D. Develop Detailed Description of Plan Features

       In the process of screening, evaluating, and selecting plans, features
    of the plan may not have been developed in sufficient detail.  At this
    step, the timing and detail of the plan should be finalized.  A critical
    path chart may be a useful  format for depicting the sequencing of plan
    implementation.

    E. Include Provisions for Performance Assessment, Plan Revision,
       and Updating

       The plan, which covers a 20-year period, should be updated as necessary,
    and must be certified annually by the governor.  Procedures for performance
    assessment and updating both technical  and management features of the plan
    are to be specified in the initial  plan submittal.

3.9 Plan Outputs

    The major elements of a State WQM Plan  are presented in Table 3.1  (p.3-56 ff.)
along with the criteria for meeting the requirements of the regulation.   These
criteria may be used by the States and EPA in their reviews to determine if the
State WQM Plans conform with the requirements of the Act, regulations, and the
continuing planning process.

    In addition to the elements in Table 3.1, the plan should include provisions
for performance assessment, plan revision,  and updating.  These provisions should
describe procedures for assessing progress  of plan implementation, for modifying
specific plan elements, for developing certain elements in more detail,  and where
possible, provide alternatives  in the event that an original  course of action
                                      3-52

-------
proves infeasible or Inadvisable 1n light of changed conditions.

3.10 Plan Adoption, Approval,  and Revision

     The following chart (Table 3.4) depicts the sequence  of plan  adoption,
approval, and revision for plans developed by designated areawide  planning
agencies as well as by State agencies.   These steps  correspond  to  the  re-
quirements of Part 131.20-22.   These procedures  are  generally self explan-
atory in the regulations.   However, further clarification  of the criteria
for State certification of plans for designated  areas and  EPA approval  of
State WQM Plans 1s presented in this section.

    A. Review and Certification of Plans for Designated Areawide
       Planning Areas (S131.ZQ(f))

       Designated areawide planning agencies may submit all  or  parts of the
    State WQM Plan developed for the designated  area for review and certifi-
    cation by the State.   (In  the case  of interstate areas,  designated  area
    plans should first be  submitted to  the State encompassing the  majority
    of the designated area population).   Annual  review and certification of
    such plans 1s also required pursuant to §131.22.   States  should review and
    certify plans developed by designated areas  according  to  the following
    criteria:

       1.  Requirements of  Part 130 and  131  (§131.20(f)(l)(1))

          The criteria by  which the State reviews the parts of  the State WQM
       Plan developed by designated areawide agencies should  be the same as
       the criteria applied in the EPA  review of the State WQM  Plan as  a whole:
       the plans or parts  thereof should conform to  the requirements of the
       Act and approved planning process, and contain the  plan  elements stated
       in  Part 131.  Where grants have  been made to  areawide  agencies under
       the interim grant regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart F),  the plans
       or portions thereof should meet  the requirements of the  interim  grant
       regulations and approved work plans.   Nevertheless, all  plans developed
    •   for areawide planning areas should be consistent with  the State  WQM Plan
       according to the criteria presented below.

       2.  Water Quality Control  Needs (§131.20(f)(1)(ii))

          In addition to the overall  review criteria  of meeting the Part 130
       and 131  requirements, the State  should ascertain whether the plans or
       parts thereof, are  consistent with other  plan  elements developed for
       the area by the State or 1n cooperation with  the State.  In  particular,
       the State should ensure that the  plans or parts thereof, meet the adopted
       State water quality standards and are consistent with  approved maximum
       allowable daily loads of pollutants  and point  source waste  load  allocations.
                                    3-53

-------
               Table 3.4  Plan Adoption. Approval. «nd Revision
                          Procedures
A.   Plan Review and Certification
     (for portions  of a  State WQM Plan
     Developed by Designated Areawldc
     Planning Agencies)
     1.
                A.    Plan Review and Certification
                     (for portions of  a  State WQJfTlan
                     Developed  by a State Agency)
Plan Developed and Public
Participation Completed
($131.20(a))
i
Plan Submitted to Elected
Officials and Governor for
Review and Recommendation
(S131.20(b))
1
Comments by Governor;
.Comments by Elected Officials --
Within 30 days (S131.20(b))
1
Plan submitted to Regional
Administrator for Corwent --
Optional (S131.20(d))
1
Plan Formally Submitted to
Governor (f!31.20(e))
1
Plan Reviewed, Certified,
Conditionally Certified or
not Certified by the Governor
(S131.20(f)), (g))
I
1. Plan Developed and Public
Participation Completed
(1131. 20(a))
1
2. Plan Submitted to Local Elec
Officials for Comment (§131.


3. Plan Submitted to Regional
Administrator for Comment —
Optional (1131. 20(d))


























                        B.   Plan Adoption

                            1.  Plan Adopted by the State
                                (I131.20(h))
                       C.   Plan Submission

                            1.  Final Plans Submitted to
                                Regional Administrator --
                                no later than Nov. 1, 1978
                                ($131.20(1))
                                Portions of Plans (Interim Outputs)
                                Submitted -- according to above
                                procedure at any time during develop-
                                ment of plans (I131.»{J))
                       D.   Plan Approval

                            1.  Plans Approved, Conditionally
                                Approved, or Disapproved by
                                Regional Administrator - Within
                                120 days of submission (I131.2t(a).(b),(c))

                                         •l>
                       E.   Plan Review and Revision

                            1.  State or Designated Area Reviews,
                                Revises Plans (if necessary)  Annually
                            2.  Minor Plan Revisions  Submitted to
                                Regional  Administrator --
                                through State in  the  Case of
                                Designated Areas  (1131.22(b))
3.
4.
                                Plan Revisions  Resulting  from
                                Determinations  of the Administrator
                                or State  (5131 .22(c})
                                Substantive  Revisions Submitted to
                                Regional Administrator  -- According
                                to Original  Review, Certification,
                                Submission,  and Approval Procedures
                                ($131.22(dJ)
                                           3-54

-------
3. Consistency with Existing Law; Recommendation for Change of
   Existing Law  (S131.20(f)(l)(11i)r

   The State should also determine whether implementation of the plan
would be consistent with existing State and local laws regarding land
use and environmental protection, or whether implementation of the
plan would require changes In such laws.  The State should determine
how to resolve conflicts between recommendations of the plan and exist-
ing State and local law, and in adopting the plan accept, reject, or
modifying the proposed solutions to such conflicts.

4.  Basis for Selecting Management Agencies (§131.20(f)(l)(iv))

    Finally, the State should determine whether the plan includes adequate
recommendations  concerning the agencies that the Governor could select
to implement each provision of the plan,  For each aspect of the plan
it is necessary  to have a management agency or agencies capable of
implementing that portion of the plan,  Each management agency must
be capable of meeting the applicable requirements of §131.Tl(o).
The determination of the applicable requirements will be based on
an agency's assigned responsibilities under the plan,  For example,
an agency responsible for implementing parts of the regulatory program
would not necessarily have to have authority to build waste treatment
facilities,

5.  State Adoption of the Plan (§131.20(f)(l)(v))

    The State should either certify that the plan or parts thereof will
be incorporated as the official  State WQM Plan (or element thereof)
for the appropriate planning area or if the plan is deficient,  deter-
mine the specific changes and schedule for such changes to be made by
the designated agency in order to receive State certification.
                              3-55

-------
            Table  3.1

            40  C.  F.  R. Part 131
Criteria  for Meeting Requirements
   (a)  Planning boundaries. A delinea-
tion, on a map of  appropriate scale, of
the  following: (1)  The  approved State
planning areas included in  the State
planning process  submitted and  ap-
proved pursuant to  § 130.41 of this Chap-
ter and areawlde planning  areas desig-
nated   pursuant to  J 130.13 of  this
Chapter.
   (2)  Those  areas in which facilities
planning has  been  deemed necessary by
the State pursuant to S 35.917-2  of this-
Chapter.
   <3) The location of each water  quality
and effluent limitation segment identified
in 8131.1Kb) (2).
   (4)  The location of each significant
discharger identified in § 131.11 (c).
   (5)  The location of fixed monitoring
stations.

  (NOTE: Such  monitoring station locations
may be omitted if such locations are avail-
able  la the EPA water quality information
system).
 (a)  Self-explanatory
  (b) Water quality assessment and seg-
ment classifications, (1) An  assessment
of existing and potential water quality
problems within the approved planning
area  or  designated  areawide planning
area, including an identification of the
types and degree of problems' and the
sources of pollutants  (both  point and
nonpoint  sources)  contributing to the
problems. The results of this  assessment
should be reflected in the State's report
required under Section 305 (b) of the
Act.
  (2) The classification of each segment
as either water quality or effluent limita-
tion  as  defined  in § 130.2(o)   of this
Chapter.
  (i) Segments shall  include the sur-
rounding land  areas that contribute or
may  contribute to  alterations  in the
physical, chemical, or biological  charac-
teristics of the surface  waters.
  
-------
            Table 3.1

            40 C. F.  R.  Part  131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
',  (c)  Inventories and projections. (1>
 An Inventory of municipal and Industrial
 sources of pollutants and a ranking of
 municipal sources which shall be .used
 by the State in the development of the
 annual  State  strategy  described  in
 1130.20 of this Chapter and the "project
 priority list" described in 5 35.915(c) of
 this  Chapter.  The inventory shall In-
 clude a description, by parameter, of the
 major waste discharge characteristics of
 each significant discharger of pollutants
 based on data from.the National Pol-
 lutant Discharge Elimination System and
 the associated  compliance monitoring
 systems, whenever available.
   (2)  A summary of  existing land use
 patterns.
   (3) Demographic and economic growth
 projections for at least a 20-year plan-
 ning period disaggregated to the level
 of detail necessary to  identify potential
 water quality problems.
   (4) Projected municipal and Industrial
 wasteloads based on 9 131.11 (c)  (1) and
 (3).  '
   (5) Protected land use patterns based
 on 8131.11(0) (2) and (3).
 (C)

     (1)   The Inventories of municipal and
 Industrial  sources should Include all such
 sources  contained In the planning area.  Mun-
 icipal sources should be ranked consistent
 with the most current State ranking system
 as approved by the EPA Regional Office.  The
 Industrial  sources Inventory need not be
 prioritized, but should Include all such
 sources  subject to MPDES permit Issuance.

     Analysis (and/or summary) of significant
 sources  should Include Information on:

     — flow of discharge
     — all  major discharge waste
       characteristics including all
       parameters which are limited by
       an NPDES permit or which cause a
       violation of Water Quality Standards
     — Numerical permit restrictions given
       1n terms of concentrations or mass
       per unit Of time
     — Stringency of effluent limitations
       related to BPT, BAT, or meeting
       Water Quality Standards
     — Final date for compliance with
       applicable effluent limitations

     (2)   Show land use patterns at a level of
 detail appropriate for design of pollution
 abatement strategies; as a guide the fol-
 lowing size units of land should be classi-
 fied according to land use:

     — 40-160 acre parcels in developed
       and developing areas (for purposes
       of facilities-planning); these parcels
       should be on a map of suitable scale
       such as V-2000' •
     — 640 acre parcels or larger in unde-
       veloped areas with a scale appropri-
       ate for evaluating runoff problems (e.g.
       soils maps)

     (3)   — Show how demographic and
             economic projections relate
             to OBERS Series E projections;
          -- show consistency with projections
             used in State air quality plans
          — show how projections are dis-
             aggregated to each planning area
             and within planning areas.

     (4)   Show how wasteload factors have
 been developed.

     (5)   Show projected land use patterns
 based on (c)(2) and  (3) and consistent
 with level of detail 1n  (C)(2).  Show
 how population growth shown In (C)(3) 1s
 allocated to land uses 1n  (C)(5).
                                       3-57

-------
             Table  3.1

             40 C.  F. R.  Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
   (d)  Nonpoint  source  assessment. An
 assessment of water  quality problems
 caused by nonpoint sources of pollutants.
   (}) The assessment shall include a de-
 scription of the type of problem, an iden-
 tification of the waters affected (by seg-
 ment  or  other  appropriate planning
 area). an evaluation of the seriousness of
 the effects on those waters, and an iden-
 tification of nonooint  sources (by cate-
 gory as  defined  In   §131.11(j))  con-
 tributing to the problem.
   (2)  Any nonpotnt sources of pollutants
 originatinsr outside a segment which ma-
 terially affect water quality within the
 segment shall be considered.
   (3)  The results of this assessment
 should be reflected in  the States' report
 required  under Section   305(b)   of  the
 Act.
 (d)
      Include  nonpoint source assessment  In
 water quality assessment required under  (b)
  (e) Water quality standards. The ap-
plicable water quality  standards. Includ-
ing the Statewide antidegradation policy,
established pursuant to Section 303(a),
(b), and (c) of the Act and any plans
for the revision of such water quality
standards.
(e)  Self-explanatory
  (f) Total maximum daily loads. (1)
For each water quality segment, or ap-
propriate portion thereof, the total al-
lowable maximum daily load of relevant
pollutants  during critical  flow  condi-
tions for  each  specific  water  quality
criterion being violated or expected to be
violated.
  (1) Such total maximum dally  toads
shall be established at levels necessary
to achieve compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
  (11)  Such toads shall  take into ac-
count:
  (A)  Provision for seasonal variation;
and
  (B)  Provision of a margin of safety
which takes  into account  any lack of
knowledge  concerning the relationship
between effluent limitations  and water
quality.
  (2) For each  water quality segment
where thermal water quality criteria are
being violated or expected to be violated,
the  total daily  thermal  load  during
critical flow conditions allowable  in each
segment
  (i) Such loads shall be established at
a level necessary to assure the protection
and  propagation of a balanced.  Indige-
nous  population of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
  (11) Such loans shall take into account:
  (A)  Normal water temperature;
  (B)  Flow rates;
  (C)  Seasonal variations;
  (D)  Existing sources  of  heat input;
and
  (E)  The dissipatlve capacity  of the
waters within the identified segment.
     (1)   Specification of flow conditions
under which maximum dally load 1s calculated.

     (1)   Demonstration that the selected
maximum  dally load for each water quality
segment  and each parameter Is. consistent
with meeting the water quality standard
(this may require use of an analytic model).

     (11)  .   Show the relationship between
    seasonal variation and the choice of
   , the  design flow conditions.
          .   Show the rationale used 1n
    determining the margin of safety

     (2)   Same criteria as (f)(l) above.
                                     3-58

-------
            Table 3.1

            40 C. F. R.  Part 131
Criteria  for Meeting Requirements
    (111) Each estimate shall Include an
 estimate of the maximum heat Input that
 can be made into the  waters  of each
 segment where temperature is one of the
 criteria being violated or expected to be
 violated  and shall Include  a  margin of
 safety which takes into  account lack of
 knowledge concerning the  development
 of thermal water quality  criteria for pro-
 tection and  propagation  of fish,  shellfish
 and wildlife in the waters of the identi-
 fied segments.
   (3)  For each water quality segment, a
 total  allocation for point sources of pol-
 lutants and a gross allotment for non-
 point sources of pollutants.
   (i)  A specific allowance  for  growth
shall be included  in  the allocation for
point sources and the gross allotment for
nonpolnt  sources.
   (ii)  The  total  of  the allocation for
 point sources and the gross allotment for
 nonpolnt  sources  shall not exceed the
 total maximum daily load.
   (4)  Where  predictive mathematical
 models are used in the determination of
 total maximum daily loads, an Identifi-
 cation and brief description of the model,
 and the specific use of the model.
   (Norm: Total  maximum daily loads (ball
 not be determined by designated areawlde
 planning agencies except where the State
 has 'delegated tuch  responsibility  to- the
 designated  agency. In thoee ca*e« wh<-re the
 responsibility  hu not been delegated, the
 State •hall determine total maximum dally
 loade for the  designated areawlde planning
 area).

   (5)  No point source load allocation de-
 veloped pursuant to this section shall be
 less stringent  than effluent limitations
 standards, or prohibitions required to be
 established pursuant to Sections 301,302,
 304, 306, 307. 311, and 316 of the Act.
     (3)   Show how the allotment for growth
 reflects  anticipated economic and demo-
 graphic growth over a five-year period,
 consistent with projections  developed
 under (c).

     (4)   self-explanatory

     (5)   self-explanatory
   The total of sueh pollutant load
allocations or effluent limitations for all
individual  point sources to the  water
quality segment shall not exceed the total
allocation for the flve-year period for all
point sources of pollutants for each seg-
ment determined pursuant  to 1131.11
  (g)

      (1)   self-explanatory

      (2)   If the sum of the Individual  loads Is
 greater than the allocation for the  segment
 show analytically how standards would be met  "
 at each discharge point.
                                       3-59

-------
            Table.3.1

            40  C.  F.  R.  Part 131 '
  Criteria for Meeting Requirements
   (3)  Each  pollutant  load  allocation
 established pursuant to this paragraph
 shall Incorporate an allowance for antic-
 ipated economic and population growth
 over at least a  five-year period and an
 additional allowance reflecting the pre-
 cision and validity of the method used
 In determining such allowance.
   (4)  Establishment  of pollutant load
 allocations shall be coordinated with the
 development of  terms and conditions of
 permits  under  the National Pollutant
 Discharge Elimination System and with
 any hearings pursuant to Section 302
 and 316 (a) of the Act relating to a source
 discharging to or otherwise affecting the
 segment.
  (NOTE: Point source load allocations shall
 not be determined by designated areawlde
 planning agencies except where the State has
 delegated  sueb responsibility to the  desig-
 nated agency. In  tho«e caves where the re-
 sponsibility has not been delegated, the State
 shall determine point source load allocations
 for the designated areawlde planning area).
      (3)   Show how the allotment for growth
  reflects anticipated economic and demographic
  growth over  a  five-year period, consistent with
  orojectlons  developed under (c).

      (4)   Show existing permit terms under
  (c) and proposed permit terms under (m)t
  (h) Municipal  waste treatment sys-
tems needs. (1) The municipal waste-
water collection and treatment system
needs by 5-year Increments, over at least
a 20-year period including an analysis of
alternative waste treatment systems, re-
quirements for and general availability
of land for waste treatment facilities and
land treatment and disposal  systems,
total capital funding required for con-
struction,  and a program to provide the
necessary financial arrangements for the
development of such systems.
  (2) The identification of municipal
waste treatment systems needs shall take
into consideration:
  (i) Load  reductions needed to  be
achieved by each waste treatment system
in order to attain and maintain appli-
cable water quality standards and effluent
limitations,
  (11) Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, Including forecasted
growth  or decline  of such population
over at least a 20-year period following
the  scheduled date  for  Installation of
the needed facility.
  (lit)  The results of preliminary and
completed planning  conducted under
Step I and Step  n  grants pursuant to
Title n of the Act.                     '
  (Nor*: In the absence at the Title n plan-
ning described  above,  tt» Stat* !• expected
to develop  «»• necessary estimates and anal-
yses required under I  lSl.Jl(h)
-------
           Table 3.1

           40 C. F. R. Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
   (1) Induitrial watte treatment tvttenu
 needs.  (1)- The  anticipated Industrial
 point  source  wasteload  reductions re-
 quired to attain and maintain applicable
 water quality standards  and  effluent
 limitations for at least a 20-year plan-
 ning period (In 5-year Increments).
   (2) Any alternative considerations for
 Industrial  sources connected to munici-
 pal  systems should be reflected In the
 alternative considerations for such mu-
 nicipal watee  treatment system.
 (D

       SI)  Show Industrial flows  as projected
        and needed load reduction to meet load
 allocations described 1n  (g),  for a 20 year
 period 1n 5 year Increments

      (2)  As part of the  Information
 developed for (h). show relationship of
 Industrial flows to amount of  flow to be
 treated by municipal systems (If systems
 are Interconnected); specify the cost
 recovery requirements that would apply to
 Industrial users and the degree  to which
 cost recovery would provide financing of
 treatment works
 . (})'Nonpoint source control needt. (.1)
For  each category of nonpoint sources
of pollutants  to  be  considered In  any
specified  area as  established In  the
State/EPA agreement (see 1130.11 of
this  Chapter),  an  Identification  and
evaluation of all  measures necessary to
produce  .the desired level of control
through application of best management
practices  (recognizing that the applica-
tion  of best management practices may
vary from area to area depending upon
the extent of water quality problems).
  (2) The evaluation shall Include an
assessment of nonpoint source control
measures applied thus far, the period of
time required to achieve the desired con-
trol  (see  1131.11 (m)), the proposed reg-
ulatory programs to achieve the controls:
(see { ISl.lHn)), the management agen-
cies  needed to achieve the  controls  (see
i 131.11(o) > • and the costs by agency and
activity, presented by S-year Increments,
to achieve the desired controls,  and a
description of the proposed actions nec-
essary to achieve such controls.
  (3) The nonpoint  source  categories
shall include:  (1) Agriculturally related
nonpoint  sources of pollution including
runoff from manure disposal  areas,  and
from land used  for livestock  and crop
production;
  (11) Silvlculturally  related  nonpoint
sources of pollution;
  (ill) Mine-related sources of pollution
including new, current and abandoned
surface and underground  mine runoff;
  
-------
       Table 3.1

       40 C. F. R. Part  131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
    (vll) Sources of pollution related to
  hydrologic modifications, including those
  caused by  chancres in the  movement,
  flow,  or  circulation  of any navigable
  waters or groundwaters due to construc-
  tion and operation of dams, levees, chan- .
  nels, or flow diversion facilities.
    (Nora: Nonpolnt source control needs need
  not be determined by designated areawlde
  planning agencies where the Governor has
  determined pursuant to Section 208 (b) (4)
  of thf> Act that the State will develop non-
  point  source control requirement* on a
  Statewide basis.)
    (k)  Residual waste  control  needs;
  land disposal needs. (1) An identification
  of the necessary  controls to be estab-
  lished over the disposition of residual
  wastes which could affect water quality
  and a description of the proposed actions
  necessary to achieve such controls.
    (2)  An identification of the necessary
  controls to be established over the dis-
  posal  of pollutants on land  or in sub-
  surface excavations 4o protect ground
  and surface water quality  and a descrip-
 tion of the proposed actions necessary to
  achieve such controls.
    (NOTE: Residual waste control needs need .
  not  be determined  by designated areawlde
  planning agencies where the Governor has
  determined pursuant to Section 208(b) (4) of
  the. Act that the State will develop residual
  waste control requirements pursuant to Sec-
  tion 208(b) (9)  (J) and (K)  on a Statewide
  basis.)
    (k)

         (1)  Provision for utilization or disposal
    of residual wastes  from municipal, Industrial
    and private facilities should be Included  in
    (h) and (1)

         (2)  Identification of all existing
    and proposed residual  waste, and subsurface
    disposal sites In area.   Identification of
    control measures needed  to be Implemented
    for existing residual  waste, land, and
    subsurface disposal  sites Including abandoned
    sites.   Identification of control measures
    to be Implemented for  new residual  waste.
    land, and subsurface disposal  sites, to
    regulate future Increases 1n wasteloads from
    such sites.   For each  control  measure above,
    Identification of corresponding regulatory
    program to Implement controls.   Demonstration
    that the planning process Includes  an
    analysis of wasteloads generated from residual
   waste disposal  sites.
   (1) Urban and industrial stormwater
systems needs. (1)  An identification of
the  required improvements to existing
urban and  industrial  stormwater sys-
tems, including combined sewer over-
flows, that are necessary  to attain and
maintain applicable water quality stand-
ards.
   (2) An  identification of the  needed
urban and industrial stormwater systems
for areas  not presently served over at
least a 20-year planning  period (in 6-
year Increments)  that are necessary to
attain and  maintain applicable water
quality standards, emphasizing  appro-
priate land management and other non-
structual techniques for control of urban
and Industrial stormwater runoff.
  (3) A cost estimate for the needs iden-
tified in (1) and (2)  above, the reduction
in capital  construction  costs brought
about by nonstructural control measures,
and  any capital and  annual operating
costs of such facilities and practices.
     0)

         (1)  An analysis of the magnitude of
     existing and  anticipated urban stormwater
     problems including those resulting from
     combined sewer overflows.  A specification
     of measures to be  undertaken either to
     better manage existing storm and combined
     sewer systems and  prevent entry of pollu-
     tants to such systems, or to provide for
     storage and treatment of such runoff.

         (2)  Specification of performance
     criteria for new construction of urban
     stormwater systems,  so as to minimize any
     stormwater problems  (including a regulatory
     program to Implement performance criteria).

         (3)  Estimation  of the effect on capital
     construction costs brought about by non-
     structural control measures.  Cost for
     Improvements to existing systems and for
     Implementing performance criteria for new
     systems Including:

         — public and private sector capital  costs
         — operations and maintenance costs
                                     3-62

-------
           Table 3.1

           40 C. F. R.  Part 131
Criteria for Meeting Requirements
  (m)  Target abatement dates. Target
abatement dates or schedules of  com-
pliance for  all significant  dischargers,
nonpoint source control measures, resid-
ual  and  land  disposal  controls,  and
stormwater   system   needs,  including
major Interim and final completion dates,
and  requirements that are necessary to
assure an adequate tracking of progress
toward compliance.
(m)

     For each category of sources  Identified
under (b) Indicate;

     — schedule of compliance with  terms
        of NPDES permit
     — schedule to Implement BMP  for all
        nonpoint sources, stormwater
        systems and residual waste systems
     — Include Interim completion dates
        and proposed scheduling of regulatory
        actions
  (n) Regulatory program*. (1)  A de-
scription of existing State/local regula-
tory programs which are being or will be
utilized  to implement the State water
quality management plan. The descrip-
tion shall  Include the  regulatory ap-
proach  to be employed, the statutory
basis for the program, find relevant ad-
ministrative  and  financial  program
aspects.
  (2)  A description of necessary addi-
tional State/local regulatory programs to
be established in order to Implement the
State water quality management  plan.
The description shall  include the pro-
posed regulatory approach, the necessary
legislation, and anticipated administra-
tive and financial capabilities.
  (3)  The regulatory programs described
in f 131.11(n> (1) and (2)  should gen-
erally take fun advantage of existing
legislative authorities and administrative
capabilities.  However,  such  programs
shall assure that:
  (1)  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 pollution in-
cluding  Inplace or accumulated deposits
of pollutants;
   (ii) The location, modification  and
construction of any facilities, activities,
or substantive changes in use of the lands
within  the   approved  planning  area,
which might result in any new or delete-
rious discharge directly or Indirectly into
navigable waters are regulated; and
  (iii) Any  industrial  or commercial
wastes  discharged  Into any  publicly
owned treatment works meet applicable
pretreatment requirements.
  (n)

      (1-2)   Demonstration that management
  agency(s)  recommended to Implement plan
  have  authority and capability specified
  In S208(c)(2)  to provide waste treatment
  management on  an areawide basis.  Demon-
  stration that  planning process has iden-
  tified and evaluated all  sources of
  pollution  in the area and developed appro-
  priate control  alternatives  for existing
  and potential  forms  of pollution, including
  waste load reduction levels  'consistent
  with meeting and maintaining water quality
  goals of Section 101(a)(2).

     — For each category  of  pollutant sources
        identified In the  planning process
        (including nonpoint source categories
        In  (d)),  identification of corresponding
        controls  included  in  the initial  plan.

             Demonstration that an adequate
  regulatory program  for each category of
  pollutant  sources Identified in the plan-
  ning process Is included in the plan, by
  documenting:

      --  conditions and situations 1n which
         regulation applies, Including abatement
         requirements
      --  timing  of regulations, notice, and hearings
      —  legal  form of regulation e.g..activity
        permits, land use controls, zoning, building
        codes,  licensing of pollutant generating
        activities, conservation plans, etc.
      —  legal authority for regulation;,adequacy
        of  existing law or proposed new regulation
      — agencies responsible  for implementing
        regulation, agency staffing and funding
        for programs

      (3)(1-ii)   Same  documentation as (n)(l).
  Demonstration  that,  to the extent practicable,
 waste treatment management is on an areawide
  and/or Statewide basis.

        (111)    Demonstration that pretreatment
  requirements of S307 of the  Act will  be  met.
  Demonstration  that implementation of 8307
  requirements and other requirements proposed
  1n the plan will  allow proper functioning of
  facilities proposed  in (h)(l).
                                    3-63

-------
          Table 3.1

          40 C. F. R.  Part 131
 Criteria for Meeting  Requirements
   (o)  Management agencies.  (1)  The
 Identification of  those agencies recom-
 mended for designation by the Governor
 pursuant to 5130.15 of this Chapter to
 carry out each of the provisions of the
 water quality  management  plan.  The
 identification shall Include those agen-
 cies necessary to construct, operate and
 maintain all treatment works identified
 in the plan and those agencies necessary
 to  Implement the regulatory  programs
 described in 5 131.11 (n).
   (2) Depending upon an agency's as-
 signed  responsibilities under  the, plan,
 the agency must have adequate author-
 ity and capability:
   (i) To carry out its assigned portions
 of an approved State water quality man-
 agement plan(s) (including  the plans
 developed for areawide planning areas
 designated pursuant  to Section 208 (a)
 <2), (3). or (4) of the Act)  developed
 under this part;
   (11) To effectively manage waste treat-
 ment works and related point and non-
 point  source facilities  and  practices
 serving such area in conformance with
 the approved plan;
   (ill) Directly or by contract, to design
 and construct new works, and to operate
 and maintain new and existing works as
 required by any approved water quality
 management plan developed under this
 part;
  (iv)  To accept and utilize grants or
 other funds from any source for waste
 treatment  management  or   nonpoint
 source control purposes;
  (v) To  raise revenues,  including the
 assessment of user charges;
  (vi) To incur short and long term In-
 debtedness;
  (vli) To assure, In implementation of
 an  approved water quality management
 plan, that each participating community
 pays its proportionate share  of  related
 costs;
  (vill)  To refuse to receive any wastes
 from a  municipality  or subdivision
 thereof, which does not comply with any
 provision of an approved  water quality
 management plan  applicable to  such
 areas; and
  (ix) To accept for treatment industrial
 wastes.
  (o)

       (1)   For each planning area and for
  each  category of sources Identified 1n the
  plan, Identify agency(s) responsible for
  construction, operation, and maintenance
  of treatment works, and for carrying out
  the regulatory programs specified In (n)

       (2)   For each requirement (o)(2)(1-1x)
  relating  to  authority of management agencies
  to carry  out various functions Indicate the
  source of authority, the specific legislation
  or regulation specifying how such authority
  may be exercised by the appropriate agency,
  and the budget authority to Implement each
  element of the plan.
  (p)  Environmental,  social, economic
tmpact. An assessment of the environ-
mental, social, and economic Impact of
carrying out the plan.
(P)

     (1)  Environmental  assessment of the
plan (either at  the  level  of each planning
area or portions of  planning areas) Including
Identification of

     — plan schedule
 — effectiveness  In meeting water
        quality  goals
     — direct costs
     — social,  economic,  environmental Impact
                                   3-64

-------
                               CHAPTER 4

                         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4.1  Introduction
     A.  Need for Public Involvement

         The success of a water quality plan depends on Its acceptance
     by the public and in particular affected units of local  government.
     It is important that the general public in the planning  area be
     actively involved in plan development and that public participation
     in the implementation phase of the plan be encouraged.  Due to  the
     complexity of planning,  it is necessary to provide a structured
     program of public involvement to assure adequate exchange of
     information and opinion  between the public and the planning agency.

     B.  Legal  Requirements

         Public particpation  is an important element in any water quality
     planning effort.   Section 101(e) of the Act states:

              Public participation in the development,  revision,
              and enforcement of any regulation,  standard,  effluent
              limitation,  plan or program established by the
             Administrator (of EPA)  or any State under this
             Act shall  be  provided  for,  encouraged,  and
              assisted by  the Administrator and the States.

         Parts  130 and 131  establish   extensive citizen participation
     requirements.   Citizen participation is mandated throughout the
     entire planning process.   In addition,  the Environmental  Protection
     Agency has  published regulations specifying  the  minimum guidelines
     for  public  participation in water pollution  control  efforts.  These
     regulations (40 CPR 105),  summarized below,  require  planning agencies
     to do  the  following (See 40 CFR  105  for complete requirements):

         1.   Provide technical  information  "at  the  earliest practicable
         times and  at  places  easily accessible  to Interested or  affected
         persons and organizations" and to  assist the public in  understanding
         and  responding  to  water programs.

         2.   To  have "standing  arrangements  for early consultation and
         the  exchange  of views  with Interested or affected persons and
         organizations on development or  revision of  plans, programs or
         other significant  actions prior  to  decision-making."

         3.   To  maintain a  current list of  Interested persons and
         organizations to be  notified, when  appropriate or required by
         law, concerning agency hearings, rule-making, or other
         significant actions.


                                  4-1

-------
         4.  To develop procedures to insure that information and evidence
         concerning water programs, when submitted by citizens, will receive
         proper attention.  In particular, public reporting of water pollu-
         tion law violations is to be encouraged.

         5.  To provide "full and open information on legal proceedings under
         the Act" to the extent consistent with court requirements and to a
         degree that does not prejudice the conduct of litigation.

         6.  To provide opportunities for public hearings oh proposed regula-
         tions where appropriate or required by law.  Public hearings should
         be conducted whenever there is sufficient public interest in a
         matter.  Whenever doubt arises concerning the degree of public
         interest, the question should be resolved in favor of a hearing, or,
         if necessary, by providing an alternate opportunity for public
         participation.  EPA regulations on procedures for public hearings
         should be followed if state agency procedures are less stringent.
         (See 40 CFR 105.7 for guidelines concerning public hearings.)

         The activities listed represent only the minimum steps that planning
     agencies should undertake to provide for public involvement.  In many
     instances, however, there are alternative methods for accomplishing
     this public involvement.  The rest of this chapter discusses ways to
     comply with these requirements through a variety of formal programs
     of public participation.

4.2  Public Participation Program Development

     A.  Public Participation in Formulating the State Continuing Planning
         Process

         Since the continuing planning process 1s the State's overall
     management and decision-making framework for water quality programs,
     It is Important to design this process in such a way as to enable, encourage
     and assist public Involvement.  The State must seek public reaction on the
     design of this decision-making process before submitting the process
     for EPA approval.  It is especially Important to involve the Interested
     public 1n developing the State/EPA Agreement on level  of detail and
     timing for carrying out State WQM Plans, and to specify the public
     Involvement program that will be followed in plan development in the
     State/EPA Agreement.

     B.  Relationship with the State WQM Planning Process

         A program for public involvement must be an Integral part of the
     State WQM planning process and should outline the specific means for
                                   4-2

-------
public participation at each step In the planning process.  The
planning process should be designed so progression from one stage
to another cannot take place without certain well-defined inputs
from the public.

C.  The Major Phases in the Planning Process

    The planning process involves several general phases, although
planners may define the specific tasks within the phases somewhat
differently.  The phases are Important because they are the activities
around which a program of public participation should be organized.
The planning process will Include the following phases.

    1.  Establishment of Goals and Objectives

        During the first stage of plan development, the planning agency
    should establish channels of communication with the public.   Citizen
    opinion should be sought on the following issues:

        1.  The Identification of water quality problems and priorities
        for resolving these problems.

        2.  The relative importance of water quality goals 1n relation
        to other community goals.

        3.  The role that water quality management can or should play
        In achieving community goals.

        4.  The use of land use controls and a regional approach to
        waste treatment to protect water quality.

        5.  The use of land disposal  and other Innovative or contro-
        versial  pollution control  technologies.

    2.  Design of Alternatives

        Since water quality planning  1s but one aspect of community
    planning, 1t 1s Important, particularly 1n the design of alter-
    natives, that the planning agency consider how community goals
    may conflict or be compatible  with water pollution control
    alternatives.

        Citizen views should be solicited on the compatibility of
    various water pollution control approaches (municipal  and Indus-
    trial  source control, land use and land management control for
    point  and nonpolnt sources, and control of residual waste) with
    other  community goals.
                              4-3

-------
    It is also necessary to solicit public reaction to possible
management alternatives for implementing the plan.  Compatibility
of the management alternatives with the following kinds of planning
and implementation agencies may be considered:

    - comprehensive planning agencies;
    - general purpose local governments;
    - sewer districts;
    - air quality control agencies;
    - water quality control agencies;
    - soil conservation districts;
    - solid waste planning agencies;
    - transportation planning agencies;
    - economic development agencies;
    - parks and recreation agencies.

3.  Impact Assessment

    Since the evaluation of certain aspects of the plan is largely
subjective, it is important that those affected-by and interested in the
plan be involved in assessing its impact.  Special efforts should be made
to obtain the reaction of those individuals and institutions that
would bear the responsibility for financing, construction, opera-
tions, monitoring, and enforcement.  The public should also have
the opportunity to request further study of plan impact.

4.  Recommendation and Acceptance of the Final Plan

    During this stage, the planning agency should consider such
factors as the attainment of additional benefits from increased
expenditures, or the minimization of undesirable social, economic,
and environmental impacts.  Public comment that accurately reflects
community goals and preferences is therefore needed on plan impact.

    At this stage, it is vital that elected officials who are
responsible for local approval of the recommended plan are made
aware of public comments and opinions.  This is a major responsi-
bility of the entire public participation program.

5.  Plan Revision

    Once a plan has been selected, the public should still have the
opportunity to participate in any periodic updating of the plan.
Information should be available continually to permit evaluation of
progress made under the plan.
                              4-4

-------
D.  Principles for Public Involvement

    While there are no hard and fast rules for structuring a public
involvement program, several general principles should be kept in
mi nd:

    1.  The program should be an active program.   Since the optimum
    degree of public involvement will usually not occur spontaneously,
    simply providing information to those who ask for it Is not adequate.
    An active program is needed to seek out and encourage those who can provide
    useful Inputs, as well as those who will  be affected by the plan.

    2.  The program should include adequate provision for disseminating
    information to the public.   One of the greatest inhibitors to
    active public involvement in planning programs is lack of readily
    available information.  To  preclude this  from happening, all  data
    and information available to planners must be easily accessible
    to the public.  Depositories of documents and data should be clearly
    identified to the public, and should remain open for use by the
    public at times that are generally convenient to the average citizen.
    Assistance should be provided in locating specific documents or data
    retained in the depository, reproduction  equipment should be available
    for use at a moderate cost.  MaiHnq lists, newsletters, and other
    publications:- sJieuld  alsfl  be. us-ed,

    3.  The program should be allocated adequate  time and funding within
    the overall planning effort.  Costs of the program should be included
    in the planning budget.

    4.  The planning agency should designate  and  identify to the public
    a  person or persons  to be directly responsible for the public involve-
    ment program.

    5.  Elected officials and representatives of  state and federal  agencies
    who must pass judgement on  a plan should  be involved in all  significant
    planning decisions.

    6.  The program should be responsive to all Interested citizens.   Parti-
    cipation in planning should not be dominated  by any one interest group
    or individual.  This can best be done by  Including without exception
    in mailings, notifications, etc., all parties who express Interest 1n
    the project or who have been involved in  community Issues related  to
    water quality planning and  management.
                              4-5

-------
4.3  A Model Program for Public Involvement

     The task of providing for public participation In the planning process
is, ultimately, the job of matching specific participation activities with
specific planning tasks.  There are many ways in which this matching might
occur, depending upon how agencies define their tasks in detail and which
participation activities they choose to emphasize.  The following table
(pp. 4-7, 4-8), lists six categories of public participation activity which
should accompany each major phase of the planning process and matches them
with one suggested definition of planning tasks.  Within each category of
participation activity will be found one, or several, suggested alternatives
for that activity.

     One useful method by which planning agencies can assure compliance with
the public participation guidelines 1s to match the public participation
Items in the table with their own definition of planning tasks.  Those       ,
responsible for assuring compliance can then "check" a participation activity
a,s it occurs and be sure, finally, that for each major planning task all     l
the major participation activities have been assured.

4.4  Institutional Alternatives for Representation of the General Public

     Institutional arrangements to Implement requirements for public partici-i
pation are a matter of discretion, as long as the provisions made meet the
criteria of the Act and Federal regulations.  However, those arrangements
chosen should:

     1.  Provide clearly defined channels through which citizens may contact
     decision-makers and planning staff.

     2.  Define responsibility for actively carrying out public involvement
     activities.

     3.  Provide adequate funding for public participation throughout the
     planning process.

     4.  Be responsive to all Interested citizens, but not dominated by any
     single Interest group.

     Although a number of Institutional arrangements may meet these
requirements, a formal mechanism to ensure full citizen understanding and
approval of the plan will probably be necessary, given the scope and
complexity of water quality problems.
                                   4-6

-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
\. Informational material Public consultation Public
N. and access to information and assistance . notice and Enforcement Legal
>^
N.
N.
N.
Continuing N.
Planning Process; N.
Development of \.
State WQM Plans X
^w
V
A. Continuing Planning
Process
1. Process Design
2. State /EPA
Agreement
B. State WQMP Process
1. Planning Bound-
aries
2. Water Quality
Assessments and
Segment Classifi-
cation
3. Inventories and
Projections
4. Nonpoint Source
Assessment
5. Water Quality
Standards
6. Total Maximum
Daily Loads
7. Point Source Load
Allocations
8. Municipal Facility
Needs.


IE
» 4J
J 3
< o a


























































Q)
U
Y4
1
U
^4
H
,3
3
4

























CO
IIH O
O ^H
O U
•H 
-------
                                                                        PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES
                                        Informational material
                                        and access to information
Public consultation
and assistance
 Public
notice and
                                                                                                                  Enforcement
                                                                                                                                     Legal
 I
CO

X
\
\
X
N.

PLANNING PROCESS N^
9. Industrial
Facilities Needs
10. Nonpoint Source
Control Needs
11. Residual Waste
Control Needs
12. Stormwater Needs
13. Target Abatement
bate's "
14. Regulatory
Programs
15. Implementing and
Operating Agencies
16. Environmental,
Social, and Eco-
nomic Impact
17. Plan Review and
Approval

•a
C 01
«B
w •
O u
vt o
t) 1-1
O 10
f-4 &
£ %
I
75














*




U)
c
c
a
o
a.
c
q
d




















'
•;

i

c_
























M
•r
Tj


















j





V
e
.c
<.
c
c
c
in


















[





i






















•3 «
es i-
a t
m *f
0. E
o 
n
lr^
n
ra
co















































in
^j
in
''"j
CO
C
f~l




















in
CO
c
•H
VJ
Q
U
r-4




















O
O
•H
|

r-1
S
E
o
U-4
c
h-<














































U-I
o
C to
O £?
i-4 O
AJ *(-<
S >
O C
•O CJ
•r-l C4
S2
O -i-l
u o


















t-< O O
o at-*
3 a j-i
•c e «s
•r-l tj CX,
> S •"
•H 0
C JJ 4J
•H V*
- X 13
u-i u a.
0 C
u ° °
- 13 i-l
a. /3
a. t. 3
< O a.












































A


V
u
•r^
4-1
O
c
u
rt
-1
Q
3
i.


















. u^l^ t£U

m
O *r^
tf -2
0 U
•^ O
u >a
a
O t-l
2 S
j3 *i-i
^^


















•LUti


C
•J
It
Cl
u
•rl
I


















5

























i\uie

c
o
•H e>
•U rl
6 5
C ta
o u>
•s ^
•rl
1-1 O


















-naKi


1

«
a
u
1
















i


-------
      An exemplary arrangement  would  be  a  fully-funded  public  participation
 working group,  acting  in  partnership with the planning staff  and management
 agency(s).   Funds should  be  made  available to cover  the cost  of printing,
 announcements  in  the media,  and other incidental  expenses.

 4.5  Program Eyajjjation

      An important part of any  public involvement  program is a set of feed-
 back  mechanisms to continually monitor  the success or  failure of the program.
 If  feedback  indicates  ongoing  efforts are inadequate,  adjustments should
 be  made as soon as possible, so that the  success  of  the program will not be
 jeopardized.   In  making an evaluation,  information may be drawn from a
 variety of sources, including:

      -  nature of  informal contacts initiated  by the  public;
      -  amount of  interaction between the  planners and  the public;
      -  attendance at meetings  and hearings;
      -  amount of  related  public-sponsored activity such as meetings,
        workshops,  door-to-door campaigns,  etc.;
      -  amount and nature  of media coverage;
      -  formal surveys.

      In  addition  to monitoring inputs received from  the public participation
 program, an evaluation should  also be made of the effect these inputs had on
 subsequent decision-making.  An effective public participation program.should
 be  structured in  such  a way that the inputs received have an influence on
 later decisions.   Otherwise, the program  is inadequate, and steps should be
 taken to correct  the deficiency.

 4.6  Advisory Committee for Designated Areas

      In compliance with Section 304(j) of  P.L. 92-500,  the Administrator of
 the Environmental  Protection Agency  has entered into an agreement with
 the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Army, and Interior.
 Notice of Final Agreements was published  in the Federal Register, Vol. 38,
 No. 225, November 23,  1973.

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

     Provisions should also be made for inclusion of representatives of the
 general public on the policy advisory committee.   The membership
may be further expanded as considered appropriate by EPA and the State.  A
 special effort should be made to include representatives of agencies res-
 ponsible for other environmental  programs being conducted in the planning
area.
                                   4-9

-------
     The requirement for State policy advisory committees is fully discussed
in Chapter 2.3.B.

     In addition to Policy Advisory Committees, citizen advisory committees
should be established.   It is unlikely that adequate citizen input will be
obtained solely through the Policy Advisory Committee.  Citizens can provide
valuable inputs throughout the planning process.   Their participation should
be actively encouraged.
                                   4-10

-------
                        CHAPTER 5
            WATER QUALITY STANDARDS REVISION
     Guidance on revising water quality standards is being
prepared and will be made available as soon as it is
completed.

-------
                                CHAPTER 6

                         LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Introduction

    A. Purpose

       The purpose of this chapter 1s to describe an optional  procedure
    for developing alternative subplans or strategies for pollution  abate-
    ment for entire planning areas.   This procedure consists  of breaking
    the planning area Into a series  of units  corresponding to various
    land uses, and calculating the pollutant  loading (from all  sources)
    associated with the land use configuration.   Alternative  abatement
    measures can be devised by changing the mix  of land uses  and land
    management practices associated  with such uses.  This will  also
    enable tradeoffs between structural solutions (e.g., treatment facil-
    ities) and nonstructural solutions (e.g., alternative land  uses),
    thus increasing the flexibility  in the choice of methods  to achieve
    water quality standards.  Analysis of abatement strategies  on an
    areal basis provides a focal point for developing particular point
    and nonpoint source abatement measures for various land areas within
    the planning area.

       The areal approach to development of abatement measures  Is also
    useful as a means of relating possible control  strategies  to other
    planning activities which can affect land use decisions.   Since  water
    quality is one of a series of economic, social, and environmental
    objectives which may be considered when making  land use decisions,
    the planning agency should be fully aware of planning and  Implementa-
    tion programs designed to achieve these and  other objectives of  the
    area.  Of particular Importance  are planning efforts which  may be
    ongoing during the development of the plan.   This could Include  land
    use, coastal zone management, and air quality maintenance  planning.
    The planning agency must work closely with agencies responsible  for
    other planning and Implementation programs to ensure that plans  are
    compatible and that the Implementation of other plans and programs
    does not have an adverse Impact  on carrying  out the plan.
            *
    B. Pertinent Authorizations
                *.
       Section 201(c) authorizes, to the extent  practicable, the "control
    or treatment of all  point and nonpoint sources  of pollution...."
    This implies a need for considering land  use controls and  land manage-
    ment practices as a means for nonpoint source control.

       Section 208(b)(2)(C)(11) provides that the areawlde waste treatment
    management plan include "the establishment of a regulatory  program to
    regulate the location, modification, and  construction of any facilities
                                 6-1

-------
 within such area which may result in  any discharge  in  such  area —"
 This provides authority for the management agency(s) to  regulate
 location of new pollutant dischargers by determining the location of
 municipal  treatment facilities, by seeking control  of  other pollutant
 sources, and by seeking appropriate changes in  land use  plans  and
 controls from the agencies possessing land use  jurisdiction in the
 area.  The term "facilities" in the above citation  includes any
 controllable source of pollutants, the regulation of which  contributes
 to attaining water quality standards.

    More explicit authority for the plan to consider land use in the
 area is provided in Section 208(b)(2)(F-H) which states  that the plan
 will set forth procedures and methods including "land  use requirements"
 to control to the extent feasible certain nonpoint  sources  of  pollu-
 tion.  The term "land use requirements" in Section  208(bJ(2)(F-H)
 includes those land use controls (legally permitted uses) and  those
 land management regulations (regulation of activities  conducted on
 land) which contribute to the attainment of water quality standards.

 C. Relationship with Existing Land Use Plans

    Throughout the process of incorporating land use considerations
 into the plan, primary reliance should be placed on utilizing
 existing land use plans, projections, and controls, although it will
 be necessary in some cases to identify necessary revisions  to  incorporate
 changes responsive to water quality objectives.  Since it is unlikely
'that the planning agency will  have the authority to enact or implement
 changes in land use controls,  it is essential that  the planning agency
 work closely with those government agencies possessing legal author-
 ity for land use planning and  control.   This will be necessary to
 assure that the management agency(s)  has the authority to implement
 the plan.

    It is also possible that some jurisdictions  within  the area will
 not have land use plans, projections, and/or controls.   In  this case,
 the planning agency should work with  the appropriate jurisdictions
 to gather enough information about the area so  that current and future
 development patterns, densities, and  policies can be identified.  If
 it is determined that revisions in these patterns,  densities,  and poli-
 cies are necessary to achieve  water quality standards  in a  cost-effective
 manner, the planning agency must work closely with  the appropriate
 jurisdictions possessing legal  authority to enact and  Implement such
 revisions.

    The major output of the procedure  describe in this  chapter  should
 be alternative abatement strategies or subplans for all  pollutant
 sources, with particular attention given to land use and land  manage-
 ment controls that could be used to Implement these strategies.
                                6-2

-------
6.2 Develop Area Subplans through Land Use Analysis

    A. Inputs

       1. Waste Load Projections  by Land Area

          Abatement strategies  for land units  within  the  planning  area
       should be designed to reduce existing and  projected waste loads  in
       the area to an acceptable  level.  The population,  employment,  land
       use, and waste load projections developed  as part  of  element  (c)
       of the State WQM Plan should be used as the basis  for developing
       the abatement strategies.

       2.  Display of Waste Load Projections

          In order to develop abatement strategies, it may prove useful,
       especially to elicit public  reaction, to display existing and
       projected wasteloads to  show their special configuration.  This
       could be done on  maps used to develop land use projections.  Rather
       than using a single map, it  might be appropriate to use a series
       of maps  so that point sources,  nonpoint sources, and  various
       pollutant parameters can be  clearly  Identified.

       3.  Detailed Projection of Wasteloads

          Where land use and wasteload  projections developed for element (c)
       do  not provide sufficient information to enable design of abate-
       ment alternatives,  the following  land use and environmental  factors
       may be useful  in developing  a more detailed breakdown of wasteload
       information:

          a.  Topographic and soil  series classifications;

          b.  Bodies  of water and related lands that would be beneficially
             or adversely  affected  by a change in water quality;

          c.  Water  supply,  treatment, and distribution systems;

          d.  Existing waste  treatment and collection systems, Including
             interim  facilities and major urban storm drainage facilities;

         e.  Solid waste disposal  sites;

         f. Areas presently served by septic  tanks  and areas suitable
             for septic tanks at specified densities;
                                   6-3

-------
      g. Environmentally sensitive areas:

         - Aquifers and aquifer recharge areas;
         - Marshland and wetlands;
         - Drainageways and stream buffers;
         - Flood plains;
         - Forests and woodlands;
         - Erodable and/or poorly  drained  soils;
         - Steep slopes;
         - Shore!ands.

      However, before collecting additional  land  use  and  environmental
   information, it is important to understand how the information can
   be used to relate land use and  environmental factors to  water quality.
   (A discussion of wasteload estimation and prediction techniques  is
   found in Chapters 7 and 8.)

B. Develop Alternative Abatement Strategies

   1. Analyze Alternative Land Use Controls  and Practices

      Land use controls and practices  should be analyzed  to determine
   those which would be most cost  efficient  in reducing pollutant
   loadings, based on the specific water quality  problems 1n the area.
   For example, if sediment is a primary problem, special considera-
   tion should be  given to controls such as  grading regulations,
   construction ordinances, and sediment and soil erosion control
   ordinances.

      Following is a list of major land  use  controls  and  practices
   that should be  considered as possible measures for implementing
   pollution control  in a planning area.  Other ordinances, regula-
   tions, and policies which may have  a  direct or Indirect  Impact on
   water quality should also be assessed:

      - Zoning;
      - Flood plain zoning and regulations;
      - Environmental performance  zoning;
      - Subdivision regulations;
      - Planned unit development regulations;
      - Buffer zones;
      - Conservation and scenic easements;
      - Density bonuses;
      - Housing codes;
      - Building codes;
      - Construction permits;
      - Development permits;
      - Transferable development rights;
                                6-4

-------
   - Hillside development regulations;
   - Drainage regulations;
   - Grading regulations;
   - Soil erosion and sediment control ordinances;
   - Solid waste control ordinances;
   - Septic tank ordinances;
   - Taxation policies;
   - Public works policies;
   - Public investment policies;
   - Land conservation policies;
   - Discharge permits.

   Land use controls and practices should be reviewed and analyzed
as early as possible in the planning process to ensure their feasi-
bility in plan implementation especially with respect to nonpoint
source control.  When evaluating land use controls and practices
for the area, the planning agency should be cognizant of the general
authority and requirements for land use provided under state and local
environmental, conservation, and land use planning programs.  Addition-
ally, the agency should survey existing State enabling laws relating
to land use and identify necessary or desirable statutory changes.
This will help ensure that the plan can be implemented with proper
legal authority.  Institutional structures for implementing the
controls are discussed in Chapter 9.

   Since land use controls and practices are used to achieve a
variety of objectives, the following factors should be considered
when conducting the analysis:

   a. Implementation capability.   Careful  consideration should
   be given to the feasibility of land use controls and their
   relationship to existing and proposed institutional and
   financial arrangements.

   b. Consistency with other programs.  To the extent that it is
   practical, the land use controls should be consistent with
   other programs, policies, and  plans such as those related to
   transportation, water supply,  capital  improvements, air quality,
   etc.   •

   c. Public acceptance.   Since controls  that are unacceptable
   to the public are unlikely to  be implemented,  it is essential
   that serious  consideration be  given to  the public's viewpoint.
   Appropriate public participation measures are  discussed in
   Chapter 4.  .
                           6-5

-------
   2. Develop Alternative Subplans

      Alternative subplans for all sources should be developed, based
   on the analysis of land use controls and practices and specific
   point and nonpoint source controls for each land unit considered
   in the analysis.  Information on point and nonpoint source abate-
   ment techniques is found in Chapters 7 and 8.

   3. Display Waste!oads for Subplan

      The waste loadings for each subplan should be displayed to
   show their alternative spacial configuration.  (This step completes
   the development of alternative area subplans (Chapter 3.6.E).)
   A list of the land use controls and practices needed to implement
   a given subplan should accompany the display.  This list as well
   as the display can be used in the environmental assessment and
   plan selection process.

C. Refine Subplans

   After the various subplans have been developed, further refinements
should be considered in screening alternative subplans and combining
subplans into alternative areawide plans.  The following questions
may prove useful in suggesting some final refinements:

   1. Is this the optimum development pattern for water quality?

   2. Could the number and magnitude of discharges be reduced if
   the development pattern was changed?

   3. Will the location of discharges have an adverse impact on water
   quality? .

   4. Will the timing of discharges have an adverse impact on water
   quality?

   5. Would the implementation of additional land use controls reduce
   overall investments?
                              6-6

-------
                                   CHAPTER  7

                   NONPOINT SOURCE  MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
 7.1   Introduction

      Chapter  3  presents a framework for the systematic evaluation of all
 sources  of pollution and selection of alternative plans for the area.  The
 control  plans must  identify nonpoint sources, evaluate their impact on
 water quality,  and  delineate measures for their control.

      Nonpoint sources, while not defined in the Act, are, by inference,
 the accumulated pollutants in the stream, diffuse runoff, seepage, and
 percolation contributing to the degradation of the quality of surface and
 ground waters*.  They include the natural sources (seeps, springs, etc.)
 and millions of small point sources that presently are not covered by
 effluent permits under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.

      Provisions for control of nonpoint sources from agricultural, silvi-
 cultural, mining, construction and urban/suburban area must be included in
 the development of  a State WQM Plan.  Land and subsurface disposal of
 residual wastes, salt water intrusion, and hydrographic modification con-
 tributing to water  quality degradation must also be considered.

 7.2   Statutory  Requirements and EPA Policy

      A.  Statute

         Section 208(b)(2)(c)(1) states that a 208 plan shall  include estab-
      lishment of a  regulatory program to "implement the waste  treatment
      management requirements of Sec. 201(c)," which calls for  control  of all
      point and  nonpoint sources of pollution.

         Section 208(b)(2)(F-I) states that a plan prepared under the
      areawide waste treatment management planning process shall include:

         "A process to (1)  identify, if appropriate,...(nonpoint
         sources of pollution)..and (ii) set forth procedures  and
         methods (Including land use requirements) to control  to
         the extent feasible such sources."


*This definition of nonpoint sources 1s for purposes of explaining how
the States could develop Best Management Practices for all runoff sources
of pollution not covered by the NPDES program.  This definition is not
intended to reflect EPA's possible response to the court order required
by Judge Flannery's decision on NRDC v.  Train. Civil Action No. 1629,
Federal District Court for  the District of Columbia.
                                     7-1

-------
Finally, Sections 208(b)(2)(J) and (K) provide that a plan shall
include:

    "A process to control the disposition of all  residual  waste
    generated in such area which could affect water quality,"
    and

    "A process to control disposal of pollutants  on land or in
    subsurface excavations within such area to protect ground
    and surface water quality;"

B.  EPA Policy on Implementing the Statutory Requirements

    The requirement for a regulatory program over all point and
nonpoint sources places a clear responsibility on areas developing
State WQM Plans to establish regulation of nonpoint sources.   It
is EPA policy that the type of regulation appropriate for  each
nonpoint source category should be established by the State.
Designated 208 planning agencies may also define  nonpoint  source
regulatory measures for approval by the State.

    For each nonpoint source problem category, "Best Management
Practices" (BMP) should be defined and implemented through
appropriate regulation.  The term "Best Management Practice" refers
to a practice, or combination of practices, that  is determined by a State
(or designated areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, exam-
ination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation
to be the most effective, practicable (including  technological, economic,
and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the
amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level  compatible
with water quality goals.

C.  General Criteria for Choosing BMP

    The definition of BMP states several criteria or tests which  should
be applied by the State in choosing Best Management Practices (BMP):

        -  a BMP should manage "pollution generated by
           nonpoint sources"

        -  a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
           with water quality goals"

        -  a BMP should be "most effective in preventing
           or reducing the amount of pollution generated"

        -  a BMP should be "practicable"
                                7-2

-------
 1.   A BMP should manage  "pollution generated by nonpoint sources"

     Water pollution  sources can be functionally categorized in
 accordance with  man's  activities.  This type of categorization has been
 used in  Sections 208 and  304(e), P.L. 92-500, in connection with
 nonpoint sources.   It  is  considered to be applicable to the selection
 of  BMP to prevent or reduce pollution from these sources.  As a mini-
 mum, the State should  consider the following activity categories in
 its establishment of BMP  for nonpoint sources:

              1.   Agricultural Activities
              2.   Silvicultural Activities
              3.   Mining Activities
              4.   Construction Activities
              5.   Urban Runoff
              6.   Hydrologic Modifications
              7.   Sources  Affecting Ground Water
              8.   Residual Wastes Disposal

     The  interrelation of  the activities outlined above should be
 considered in the selection of BMP.  It may be advantageous to
 further  categorize the nonpoint sources based on similar control
 aspects.  Utilization of  sub-categorization could reduce the
 amount of duplication in  the selection of BMP.   Examples of such
 subcategorizations are: (1) by similar physical  conditions,
 e.g., soils,  slope, precipitation patterns; (2)  by similar
 activities, e.g., soil  disturbance — construction, strip mining,
 land development; (3) by  site-specific characteristics, e.g.,  all
 activities in a  single area of like conditions;  and (4) by
 pollutant to be  controlled, e.g., sediments, acidity/alkalinity,
 oxygen demanding materials.  Further guidance on establishing
 categories is found in Chapter 7.4.

2.  A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
    quality goals"

    Through analysis of existing water quality data and of newly
acquired data where necessary, target levels of  abatement should
be chosen for each planning area in the State.   The BMP should be
selected in terms of meeting these targets.   The pollutants that
must be controlled should be determined.   While  BMP will  normally
prevent or reduce several  pollutants,  the final  selection of BMP
should be related to those pollutants  that must  be controlled  to
achieve water quality goals.
                            7-3

-------
3.  A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing
    the amount of pollution generated"

    Through water guality analysis, the State should select abate-
ment levels against which the effectiveness of the BMP can be
related.  These levels (Ibs/tons per day/week/month/year,  Ibs/tons
per acre/square mile/basin, etc.) should be related to the reduction
of pollutants and achievement of water quality goals.  The effec-
tiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be fully evaluated
in terms of the selected abatement levels.

    The reduction or elimination of pollutants in the runoff,
seepage, and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially
contribute to the protection of the quality of the Nation's waters.
In general, there are two options for accomplishing the needed
reductions and/or eliminations, namely; (1) collection and treat-
ment of the pollutants and, (2) reduction and/or prevention of the
formation, runoff, seepage, and percolation of the pollutants.

    Collection and treatment of the runoff, seepage and percolation
of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
sources is generally complex and expensive.  Because of this,
collection and treatment is considered to be a final  measure to
be utilized where other preventive measures will  not reach the
necessary water quality protection goals.

    The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or reducing
the runoff, seepage, or percolation of pollutants.  First  consid-
eration should be given to those preventive techniques that have
been shown to be effective during their past use.  New and innovative
techniques should be fully analyzed as to their technical  capability
of preventing or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for
incorporation into the BMP.

    While one practice (measure) may be adequate in some cases, BMPs
will generally consist of a combination of practices.  The various
alternatives should be fully evaluated.  In choosing among the alter-
natives, the BMP that most effectively achieves the desired level of
water pollution control should be chosen.  If more than one alterna-
tive will  achieve the level of effectiveness necessary to  reach
water quality goals, the least costly alternative should be chosen.
                             7-4

-------
 4.   A  BMP  should be  "practicable"

     Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only
 the  technical  standpoint b.ut also from the financial, legal, and
 institutional  standpoint.  The practicality of securing early
 implementation should be evaluated in the selection of the BMP.

     The primary goal of BMPs is the protection of water quality
 However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in
 little water quality benefits should be avoided.  The BMP must
 be capable of  being implemented within the financial capability of
 the  area, and  of the owners or operators of the various sources.
 Side benefits  as well as the installation and operational costs
 should be included in the evaluation.  The final selection of the
 BMP  should take into consideration both the costs of the preventive
 techniques and the economic benefits (water quality or otherwise)
 to society that will result from their use.

     A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
 in the BMP are already in wideapread use within various source
 categories.  These techniques should receive first consideration
 in the selection of the BMP.  Techniques that will require opera-
 tional changes  in the source management should be avoided unless
 they are necessary for water quality protection.  Insofar as is
 possible, the  initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished
 with the existing legal  and institutional  framework of the State.
 However, if additional legal authority is needed, steps should be
 taken at an early date to secure the needed authority.

     Full consideration should be given to the total effect
 on the environment in the selection of the BMP for water pollution
 control.  A BMP applied to prevent or reduce water pollution
 should not result in adverse effects on the other portions of the
 environment such as the creation of air pollution or solid waste
 disposal problems.   Adverse effects on other portions of the environ-
ment are not only undesirable but also will  delay the implementation
 of a BMP to control water pollution.
                            7-5

-------
7.3  Planning Methods for Selection of Best Management Practices

     Best Management Practices should be related to water quality protection
needs.  In order to choose management practices, It 1s Important  to  establish
(1) how much of a water quality problem exists,  (2) to what extent the  problem
is attributable to particular categories of nonpoint source generating
activities, (3) how much reduction of pollution  from these activities might be
needed, (4) what it might cost to achieve such reduction, and (5) through
what legal, financial, and institutional mechanisms the practices might be
implemented.  In order to answer these questions, it is helpful to Investi-
gate them in a systematic manner.  The following guidance is designed to help
answer these questions, based on the planning process framework established
in Chapter 3.

7.4  Technical Planning

     A.  Introduction

         The purpose of this phase of nonpoint source planning is to answer
     the question of how much reduction of pollution 1s needed for particular
     nonpoint source activities in order to protect water quality, and
     establish the most cost-effective measure for accomplishing  this.   There
     are many conceivable approaches for relating nonpoint source control
     needs to water quality.  The level of sophistication of planning should
     be chosen 1n the light of data availability and the need for analyses 1n
     order to make a reasonable argument that particular BMPs are needed and
     will  accomplish their purpose.  It should be recognized that relating
     1n-stream water quality to levels of pollution generation from  cate-
     gories of nonpoint source activity 1s a difficult analysis.   Nevertheless,
     this  analysis should be carried out 1n order to provide the  best infor-
     mation possible for establishing the needed level  of abatement  of  various
     nonpoint sources.   Once abatement levels are established for particular
     nonpoint source activities, 1t 1s possible  to rely on existing  Infor-
     mation on costs and abatement effectiveness of alternative management
     practices.
                                     7-6

-------
 B.   Inputs

     1.   Water Quality Analysis

         The  wate'r quality  analysis  described  in Chapter 3 should provide
     the  following inputs to  nonpoint  source planning:

         -  assessment of nonpoint sources:

           The  assessment  should Indicate whether in-stream problems
           exist  related to  runoff  and what categories of runoff
           pollution  are suspected  of causing problems.

         -  segment classification:

           Planning for nonpoint sources 1s only required in relation
           to water quality  needs.  Thus nonpoint source planning should
           be undertaken in  water quality limited segments, including
           segments classified.as water quality limited as part of .an
           anti-degradation  policy.

         -  existing/projected wasteloads:

           Information on existing/projected loads from nonpoint
           sources* should be used  in the process,of classifying
  le nonpoint sources are the sources contributing to water quality
degradation where that degradation cannot be accounted for by the
known point sources.  This applies from the largest basin to the
smallest subbasin.  The nonpoint source load can be expressed as
follows:
    N «' (Q+S+D) - (P+I)

Where:

    N • Quantity (mass) of nonpoint source pollutants in terms
        of a given parameter, under a given design flow condition
    Q = Quantity of pollutants in the water leaving the test area
    S = Quantity of settlement and precipitation of pollutants
    D = Quantity of decay of nonconservative pollutants
    P = Quantity of pollutants discharged by point sources '
        (assumed to be constant under a given design flow condition)
    I - Quantity of pollutants in the water entering the test area
                                7-7

-------
       segments.  However, since information on existing nonpoint
       source loads .is likely to be scanty, this information should
       be further developed in order to choose nonpoint source
       management practices.

    -  maximum allowable loads:

       In water quality limited segments, a gross allotment for
       each parameter of pollution should be made (under design
       flow conditions) for nonpoint sources.  This allotment
       provides the basis for establishing pollution reduction
       levels for various nonpoint source categories.

    Priorities
    The level of detail of plan elements should be established early
in the planning process.  For plan elements which cannot be im-
plemented in the next five years, an assessment can be undertaken
(see Ch. 3.3.C).  In the case of nonpoint sources a number of factors
should be considered in determining whether controls can be imple-
mented in the near future.

    First, the water quality problem that the controls would seek
to alleviate should be physically reversible.  Problems of benthic
deposits (classified as nonpoint sources) may or may not be easily
reversible.  Natural levels of siltation and stream bank erosion
may not be controllable.

    Second, to be controlled in the near future, the receiving
water should have a potentially fast recovery rate.  Examples
might be impoundments or lakes exhibiting eutrophication due
to nutrients from nonpoint sources or estuaries where shellfish
production is limited by toxics or siltation from nonpoint sources.

    Third, there should be public support for solving the particu-
lar problem.  The prospects for public support are probably greatest
where a particular problem impairs beneficial uses such as water
supply, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat.  Public support
also entails financial  support for capital-intensive control measures.
There should be a reasonable prospect of obtaining financial support
for the measures; however, development of management practices should
not be precluded by lack of specific sources of funding for such
measures.
                            7-8

-------
    3.  Designation of Planning Agencies

        It 1s possible that many agencies will be Involved 1n nonpoint
    source planning and Implementation.  These agencies should be
    Identified 1n the State/EPA Agreement (5130.11).   As explained 1n
    Chapter 2, It 1s advisable for one agency to develop the water
    quality analysis and constraints for particular areas of a State.
    However the responsibility for developing alternative abatement
    measures may be divided among many agencies.  In  order to make
    decisions concerning the divisions of planning and implementation
    responsibilities, it may be helpful to initiate management analysis
    (see Chapter 7.5) 1n order to identify agencies and levels of
    government having particular expertise 1n nonpoint source management.

C.  Approach for Relating Water Quality Constraints to Abatement  Measures

    1.  Area Approach

        As.explained in Chapter 3, where there are complex interactions
    between activities that generate nonpoint sources and point sources,
    1t may be appropriate to analyze the problems of  particular land
    areas  within a planning area, develop a mass balance for each of  the
    pollutants, and attempt to choose the optimal level  of abatement
    for all  these sources.   For example, this approach may be advisable
    where  a number of sources contribute to a given problem - e.g., storm
    water  and municipal  treatment effluents contributing to high  fecal
    coliform counts.  The control needs for storm water should be chosen
    in conjunction with those for municipal  plants.   This  might vary  from
    one urban area to another.   The problem may be very complex and the
    solutions potentially very costly.   Careful  analysis of the tradeoffs
    is warranted in establishing BMPs  1n such cases.

    2.  Category Approach

        It 1s possible that particular  pollution problems  such as
    sediment are attributable to certain activities having well defined
    geographic boundaries.   If the total  problem can  be  quantified, it
    should be possible to divide the total  Into manageable parts  and
    devise abatement measures for -each  part.   For example,  if the
    sediment problem can  be sufficiently well  Identified so that  an
    overall  annual  loading  of sediment  can  be established  for a basin,
    this level  can be divided Into a series  of targets  for particular
    activities  through a  variety of allocation  techniques.   This allows
                               7-9

-------
planning efforts to focus on  particular problems  one  at  a  time.
Another example of the category approach would  be in  the case of
new or potential nonpoint source problems.   Since they are diffi-
cult to quantify and predict, it is  not feasible  to establish
tradeoffs between different new sources.  Instead each activity
could be planned for independently,  with the goal  of  determining
highest feasible abatement levels for each  activity.

    a. Establish Planning Categories

       Under either the area  approach or the category approach,
    it is necessary to divide the nonpoint  source problem  into
    parts in order to devise  management practices appropriate
    to each aspect of the problem.  In general  the following broad
    categories of nonpoint sources should be used in  establishing
    BMPs:

                agricultural  activities
                silvicultural activities
                mining activities
                construction  activities
                urban runoff
                hydro!ogic modifications
                sources affecting groundwater
                residual waste disposal

       1)  Existing and new sources

           For  each category of nonpoint sources in the area,  an
       operational definition of new and existing sources  should
       be established.  A new source would be one that would cause a
       major change in drainage.  A change from agricultural to
       residential use with a resulting significant change in
       runoff could be considered new.  In addition,  all new
       stormwater systems and hydrographic modification after a
       given date might be considered as "new".  Normal  changes
       in the conduct of a given activity such as agriculture should
       not be considered as creating a  new source.  Rather the
       distinction should be based on major changes in topography
       and drainage that would  tend to  cause significant increases
       in nonpoint source pollution.  The purpose of the distinction
       between  new and existing  sources is twofold.  First, greater
       depth of planning detail  may be  appropriate in determining
       management practices  for  existing sources, which vary great-
       ly in their magnitude and controllability.  Secondly, since it
       is not possible to anticipate the magnitude of future nonpoint
       source problems,  the  presumption should be that once existing
       sources  adopt  controls  needed to protect water quality, new
       sources  should be  required to adopt  the best practices available
       for preventing future increases  in pollution.  The  best
                             7-1Q

-------
   practices for new sources will in many cases prevent more
   pollution per dollar spent than best practices for existing
   sources, since there will be flexibility to prevent problems
   before they arise, rather than attempting to control them
   after the fact.

   2)  Factors Which Could be the Basis for Further Subcategorization

       The following are some of the factors that could be used
   to distinguish subcategories of each existing and new nonpoint
   source category:

   -  physical conditions:  e.g. soil, slope, rainfall, proximity
                            to streams, underlying geologic
                            structure, etc.

   -  activity:             e.g. surface disturbance, subsurface
                            disturbance, road construction, change
                            in ground cover, etc.

   -  site specific         e.g. a certain type of mining carried
      conditions:           out in a particular geographic area

b. Allocate Load Reductions to Each Category

   1)  Allocation Techniques

       As discussed in Chapter 3, there are a number of ways of
   expressing the maximum allowable load of pollutants*  The
   allowable load may be expressed in units of mass/unit time,
   where time refers to a particular wet weather flow condition.
   The load may also be expressed as mass/unit time where the
   time period is longer. « perhaps mass/year.  The following are
   some possible approaches for allocating this load to the
   eight general categories of nonpoint sources discussed
   previously:

   Option 1.1  - proportional to area occupied by category:

       Under this approach, each major nonpoint source category .
   would be allocated a permissable load in proportion to the
   area it occupied.  This approach would result in the same
   loading constraint per acre for all  categories.   This would
   be exceedingly difficult for the categories that generate
   relatively large quantities of pollutants per unit area  to
   meet.
                        7-11

-------
Option 1.2 - proportional  to area,  with tolerance  levels
             for each category:

    This approach would involve  assigning each category a  base
allowance of pollutant loading per  acre according  to the
uncontrollable or background loading expected from each
category.  The remaining amount  of  the maximum load could  be
assigned in proportion to area occupied by the category.   This
approach has the merit of recognizing realistic limits  of
load reduction for each category.

Option 2.1 - equal relative reduction:

    Rather than develop a mass per  acre constraint for  each
category, the information used in  determining the  maximum
allowable load could provide an  indication of the  relative
reduction from the existing loading needed to meet the  stand-
ards.  For example if the existing  loading were twice the
loading that should be allowed,  the relative reduction  for
all sources should be 50% of whatever amount of pollution
each source or category of sources  was causing.  This approach
would treat all polluters as equally responsible for the
cleanup burden whether their per acre contribution was  large
or small.

Option 2.2 - equal relative reduction, with tolerance level
             for each category:

    By this approach each category would be allowed a given load
per acre based on background or uncontrollable factors.  An
equal relative reduction of the excess over the allowed amount
could be applied to all polluters.   The relative reduction
would be based on the aggregate reduction needed for the entire
segment or basin.

Option 3.1 - best technology:

    This approach involves defining the load constraint for
each category on the basis of the abatement efficiency of
the best techniques for abating pollution for each source
category.  These abatement levels can be expressed 1n units
of mass/acre/time converted to units of mass/time in order
to determine whether the sum of the loads for all categories
would be compatible with the maximum allowable load.  Based
on the comparison between the abatement achievable with best
techniques and the allowable load, adjustments 1n the load
constraint for each category might be necessary.
                     7-12

-------
        To the extent that the  allowable  load would  be assigned
    to existing sources,  with little  or no  allowance for pollu-
    tion from new sources, it would be necessary to  establish load-
    ing constraints  for new sources on the  basis of  best technology.

        These allocation  approaches could be used to divide the
    burden of meeting the maximum allowable load among the
    principal  nonpoint source categories.   Within the eight categories
    mentioned, there are  many possible subcategories representing
    different natural  physical  conditions and production activities.
    The allocation for the eight categories could be further
    divided into the subcategories.

 c.  Relationship Between  Generation of Pollutants and Transport
    to Receiving Waters"

    The portion  of the allowable load assigned to each nonpoint
 source category is  the loading that would  be generated by sources
 in  that category and  transmitted to receiving waters.  Since part
 of  the load that is  generated may be assimilated on the land as
 1t  flows  over or through  land to the receiving water, the load
 constraints  referred  to  above apply to the combined generation and
 transmission  of a pollutant.  If the constraint 1s 10 TN/acre/yr
 at  the receiving waters  and the rate of generation at the source
 is  reduced  to 20 TN/acre/yr, with a transmission rate of 50% of
 the amount  generated  at  the site, the receiving water constraints
 can be met.

 d.  Relationship Between  Pollutant Parameters

    In  order to  simplify  the process of establishing the management
 practices to  meet the  load constraints for each pollutant and
 for each category, It may be possible to focus on one or more
 pollutant parameters as the principal constraints to be met.   For
 example, 1n rural areas, the chemical analysis of sediment may be
 fairly  uniform  over large areas.   Thus 1f appropriate controls
 are determined  for sediment, these controls will  also have a
 predictable effectiveness 1n reducing BOD,  pesticides, phosphorus,
 and other pollutants that are associated with sediment.   In
 urban areas the relative proportion of sediment and other parameters
may also exhibit certain uniformities.
                        7-13

-------
D.   Develop Abatement Subplans

    1.  Area Approach

        Procedures for developing abatement measures  for each  part of
    the planning area, for all  pollutant sources  are  discussed in
    Chapter 6.  Procedures for  developing alternative controls for each
    category are analogous to those described below in regard  to the
    category approach.

    2.  Category Approach

        The following steps could be followed in  order to determine how
    to meet the abatement levels established for  each nonpoint source
    category.  These same steps could also be followed in the  area
    approach to predict the costs and effectiveness of alternative
    abatement measures for all  nonpoint source categories within each
    part of the planning area.

        a. Estimate Existing Waste Loads for each Category/Subcategory

           Once the total nonpoint source load of a given pollutant
        under given flow conditions has been established, it is necess-
        ary to evaluate the breakdown of sources  of this pollutant  load.

           The runoff, seepage, and percolation of pollutants  from
        nonpoint sources is highly dependent on climatic, seasonal, and
        other variable events.   High rainfall, antecedent rainfalls,
        cropping patterns, street sweeping schedules, time of travel  of
        runoff, scouring and re-entry of pollutants,  etc., must be
        considered in the evaluation.  While average  conditions shed
        light on the general situation, an analysis based on high
        and/or low runoff periods, covering specific  climatic events
        and seasonal periods, is more likely to provide an accurate
        evaluation of the significance of each nonpoint source.

           Data from sources such as building inspection offices,  soil
        and water conservation  districts, and planning agencies,  should
        be evaluated to locate many of the potential  nonpoint sources
        of pollutants.  Soil survey maps, construction records, urban
        sanitation records, and other such documents  can provide  much
        information for evaluation of the pollution potential  from
        nonpoint sources.  A number of agencies (USGS, water treatment
        plants, health units, etc.) maintain water quality records,
        which should provide information on the origin of nonpoint
        sources.
                                7-14

-------
                In general,  there are two approaches  for tracing the  origin
             of nonpoint source loadings:

                      .   generalized prediction and,
                      .   monitoring and sampling.

             Whichever approach or combination of  approaches  is  used,  the
             objective should be to determine a reliable estimate of  the
             load from each  category of sources*.

                In general,  sampling and monitoring may be  needed where
             problems are so site-specific that prediction  techniques  cannot
             be used with confidence; otherwise prediction  techniques  may
             be preferable,  especially those that  can be applied using
             existing information.  However, analysis of nonpoint source
             loading should  only be carried out to the level  of  detail need-
             ed to choose best management practices.

                1)  Prediction of Nonpoint Source  Loads

                    Because  monitoring and sampling for nonpoint source
                detection is costly and requires a long time  period to
                construct an 'accurate set of data, it is advantageous  to
                use nonpoint source load prediction techniques.   Although
                estimating the pollution generated from nonpoint sources
                is a difficult task, there are prediction techniques
                which can be used.  These techniques  enable prediction of
                nonpoint source load generation and transport based on such
                measurable watershed parameters as soil, slope,  vegetative
                cover, land  use, size of drainage  area, etc.   While these
                techniques vary in their reliability, especially with regard
                to soluble pollutants and pollutants  subject  to  breakdown in
                the environment, they can be useful in choosing  best  manage-.
                ment practices.


'*  The sum of the loads from each category should  enable construction of
a materials balance showing  loading for each pollutant to the stream  and
origin (location of each category of sources) of the  loads.  A materials
balance should be constructed 1n order to carry out the area  approach as
described in Chapter 6.  The materials balance can be broken  down to
whatever degree of detail is appropriate, depending on the  accuracy of the
method for estimating nonpoint source loading.
                                    7-15

-------
    Guidance on the applicability of these models and
the services available from federal agencies for utilizing
the models is discussed in:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Methods for
    Identifying and Evaluating the Nature ancT Extent of
    Nonpgint Sources of Pollution, Report No. EPA
    430/9-73-014.  Washington, D.C.  1973.  GPO, $2.45.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interim Report
    on Loading Functions for Assessment of'Water Pollution
    from Nonpoint Sources, November 1975, Project 68-01-2293.
    Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control of Water
    Pollution from Cropland. 1975, Report No. EPA-600-2-75-026A.
    Available from Water Planning Division (WH-554), EPA.

    Additional guidance on prediction models and technqiues
for nonpoint sources is being developed by EPA and will be
available in subsequent guidance.

2)  Monitoring and Sampling to Identify Nonpoint Source Loads

    Monitoring and sampling should be undertaken in the short
term to identify nonpoint source loading in situations where
more accurate estimates are needed than can be obtained through
use of predictive models.  Secondly, monitoring and sampling
should be undertaken over a longer term to refine information
on nonpoint source loading and to serve as a management device
for assessing the progress made in attaining and maintaining
water quality through implementation of best management practices.

    In the short term, monitoring may be undertaken, 1f nec-
essary, to estimate a single gross allotment (target abatement
level) for all nonpoint sources contributing to a given water
quality segment.  Also, monitoring of carefully selected
nonpoint sources may be undertaken as necessary to calibrate/
verify the analytical technique chosen to estimate the nature
and relative magnitude of the loads associated with each
nonpoint source category.  In particular, monitoring may be
needed to verify or supplement loading estimates for such
sources as stormwater outfalls, waste lagoons, septic seepage
                     7-16

-------
   areas, land fills, spray irrigation areas,  and other signi-
   ficant sources that are difficult to estimate through pre-
   dictive techniques.

       Since it is not expected that nonpoint  source load
   estimates can be verified in the relatively short timeframe
   of initial plan formulation, it may be desirable to initiate
   an ongoing monitoring program to be carried out in the plan
   implementation phase.

       The monitoring and sampling approach needed for nonpoint
   source identification and verification should determine a
   schedule of prioritized activities that will  enable a given
   degree of identification of individual nonpoint sources at a
   given point.  For example, if the total nonpoint source load
   to the area is 1/3 of the total pollutant load for a given
   pollutant, the monitoring and sampling activities should be
   aimed at verifying a given percent of the nonpoint source
   load by a given date.  Instream water quality data which could
   be related'to specific nonpoint source sites should be evalu-
   ated in order to determine whether a given  increment of waste
   detectable in the stream could be attributed to a given nonpoint
   source.

       The sum of the wasteloads that could be traced back to
   contributing sources should be a given percent of the total
   nonpoint source load that is chosen for the initial monitoring
   and sampling coverage.  If the individual nonpoint sources
   that can be identified do not sum up to that given percent of
   the total nonpoint source load, then additional data should be
   collected.

b. Assess Effectiveness and Costs of Alternative Management
 ' Practices for each Category

   No single control method or set of control  methods will be
appropriate for all types of nonpoint source problems.  Even
controls for a particular type of source will  vary in effective-
ness according to geographic location.  The controls should be
tailored to local conditions if they are to be effective.  Thus,
a thorough knowledge of both specific types of nonpoint sources
and local conditions is a prerequisite to the  design of appro-
priate and effective controls.

   The second step in determining best management practices
for nonpoint sources is the identification of  the technically
feasible structural controls and the practicable nonstructural
controls that are available for particular nonpoint source
problems.  Technically feasible control alternatives for
                        7-17

-------
particular types of nonpoint sources are categorized and
discussed in the Best Management Practice papers,  attached
to these guidelines as Supplement No.  1.  It should  be
emphasized that these control  alternatives are cited only
as examples, and that other viable alternatives,  if  available,
should also be investigated and considered.

   For each nonpoint source category causing a water quality
problem, technically feasible control  options should be pre-
sented.  For each option, the cost of the control  and the
effectiveness of the control in abating different pollutants
(either at their source, or their yield to receiving waters)
should be presented.  Determination of nonstructural control
costs should be based upon the opportunity cost of the
control as discussed in Chapter 10.

   1)  Representative Data for Cost and Effectiveness

       Since the cost and effectiveness of nonpoint  source
   controls depend on the exact circumstances in  which the
   control is used, cost and effectiveness vary considerably.
   For purposes of evaluation, cost data should represent the
   typical or average situations.  This will assure  that the
   cost and effectiveness of the control are neither over-
   estimated nor underestimated if the control  is  being
   considered for widespread application.  Naturally, if the
   control is only applicable in very specific cases, data
   should be representative of that specific situation.

   2)  Estimation of Cost and Effectiveness  Information

       Because the precise cause-effect relationship between
   application of a given control and  achievement  of a given
   reduction of wastes to receiving waters is difficult to
   define, calculation of cost-effectiveness may  require pre-
   liminary estimation.

       Once a particular nonpoint source problem  has been
   identified, the approximate reduction of  the source load
   that could be obtained through a given control  can be
   determined.  Since the cost of the  control can  generally
   be assessed with some degree of accuracy, the  cost-effectiveness
   estimation enables an overall  ordering of the most feasible
   controls for nonpoint sources.  To  the extent  that the esti-
   mates are difficult to make, some reasonably effective practice
   should be combined with a monitoring program to assess the
   effectiveness of the practice.
                       7-18

-------
c. Propose Best Management Practices for Each Category

   After Identifying instream pollutant loading from nonpoint
sources and examining technically feasible nonpoint source
controls, the final step in nonpoint source technical  planning
is determination of best management practices for existing and
new nonpoint sources.  This selection process should be based
on determining the cost effectiveness of alternative controls
for reducing existing and potential loading to a level  com-
patible with water quality goals.

   The process of selecting controls for existing and new
nonpoint sources is essentially the same in that cost-effectiveness
and implementation feasibility should be the criteria for choosing
controls.  However, for most new sources there are often more
options for highly effective management measures and these
higher levels of abatement (chosen in the establishment of
maximum allowable pollutant loads) should be considered in the
selection of best management practices in order to prevent or
minimize future pollutant increases.

   1)  Relationship with Management Program

       Selection of best management practices should be closely
   coordinated with the development of a management program
   to implement controls for point and nonpoint sources.  A
   management program should establish the following legal,
   financial, and technical support aspects of best management
   practices (see Ch. 7.5 for further discussion):

         .  Regulatory mechanisms, including legal authority
            to implement and enforce best management practices;

            Fiscal programs to provide incentives to adopt
            best management practices;

            Technical assistance and interagency coordination
            to help affected parties comply with regulatory
            programs.

   2)  Preliminary Screening of Nonpoint Source Control
       Options

       In order to compare nonpoint source control options, it
   1s necessary to reduce the number of possible options for
   each category to those that are technically feasible, with
   adequate documentation of cost and effectiveness.  A reason-
   able number of control options for each significant non-
   point source category should be presented.
                        7-19

-------
                3)   Development of Alternative Subplans

                    After control options for each category have been
                developed, they should be combined to form alternative
                subplans.  Each subplan should indicate the cost and
                effectiveness of possible BMPs in meeting the target
                nonpoint source load reduction levels.

                    The following information for each category of nonpoint
                sources should be presented as an input to the combined
                evaluation of technical and management plans:

                      .  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative;

                      .  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its
                        present value of capital and operating costs for
                        the overall alternative and subsystem components;

                      .  Reliability of each alternative and subsystem
                        included in each alternative;

                      .  Significant environmental effects of each alter-
                        native consistent with NEPA procedures, including
                        a specific statement of future development impact;

                      .  Contribution of each alternative to other water-
                        related objectives of the planning area.

7.5  Management Planning

     A.  Introduction

         The purpose of management planning is to determine the legal,
     financial, and Institutional means needed to implement best management
     practices.  After proposed management practices can be determined  from
     a technical standpoint,  it  is necessary to examine their implementation
     feasibility and, if necessary, make adjustment to the originally pro-
     posed practices in order  to ensure that the selected practices are
     feasible from a legal,  financial, and institutional standpoint.  The
     following management  planning procedures are based on the framework
     for management planning described in Chapter 3.

     B.  Define Management Agency(s)  and  Institutional Arrangements

         The first step in management planning should  be to define the  scope
     of legal authority,  financial capacity, and  institutional arrangements
     to manage nonpoint sources.
                                    7-20

-------
    1.  Legal Authority

        Legal authority to treat wastes from nonpoint sources or to
    regulate owners and operators of nonpoint sources according to
    the management practices proposed in the technical phase of
    nonpoint source planning should be defined.

    2.  Financial Capacity

        The level of public and private expenditure to carry out the
    management practices and possible financial programs to obtain
    the funds should be identified.

    3.  Management Agency(s) and Institutional  Arrangements

        A general description of the type of agency and interagency
    arrangements to carry out proposed practices should be described.

C.  Management Analysis

    1.  Legal  Analysis

        An analysis should be made of the existing legal  basis for
    requiring management of nonpoint sources within the planning area.
    The analysis should attempt to determine the adequacy of the exist-
    ing law, distinguishing the extent to which authority to regula'te
    nonpoint sources  may exist, as opposed to the administrative
    effectiveness in  carrying out the law.  Wherever possible the
    proposed nonpoint source management practices should  rely on
    existing general  authority and seek to establish necessary
    implementing regulations and administrative and enforcement
    capability.   The  need for new legislation should also be iden-
    tified early in the planning process.

    2.  Financial  Analysis

        For each proposed management practice,  a tentative financial!
    program should be developed.   This  program  should identify capital,
    operating, and administrative costs  and sources of financing for
    the various  cost  elements.   The financial analysis should explore
    the possibility of relying  on existing programs to finance parts
    or all of  the costs for particular cost elements.

    3.  Institutional  Analysis

        There  are many existing agencies  and programs  concerned  with-
    nonpoint source management.   An analysis should be made of the
    extent to which these programs  could  incorporate the  function  of
    land management controls  for water  quality  protection.   It Is


                                 7-21

-------
               possible that many existing  programs  could  undertake  part  or all
               of the responsibilities  for  implementing  best management practices.
               Where uncertain  authority  exists  for  these  agencies and programs to
               undertake management projects  or  regulate nonpoint source  owners
               and operators, it  may be possible to  strengthen  the authority of
               these agencies or  have the agencies administer a program in cooper-
               ation with other agencies  and  levels  of government that have the
               requisite legal  authority.  In other  instances the legal authority
               may exist to  implement management practices, but insufficient funds
               may prevent an effective program.   In such  cases some of the funding
               sources suggested  in Chapter 10 should be explored and expanded budgets
               proposed for  the agencies  that otherwise  could be effective in
               implementing  management  practices.  A third deficiency of  existing
               agencies and  programs may  be lack of  a coherent  administrative
               structure to  relate water  quality and other resource  management
               programs.  For example,  many public works and land management pro-
               grams have an impact on  water  quality; however,  water quality
               protection may not be an explicit goal in these  programs.  By slight
               modification  in  the mission  of these  existing land and resource
               management programs, it  may  be possible to  develop effective water
               quality management institutions.   However,  it may still be necessary
               to develop coordination  mechanisms  between  the many institutions
               having the potential to  carry  out water quality  management.

                   The following  is a partial  list of existing  agencies and levels
               of government that may have  the potential to carry out nonpoint
               source management:


                                                                     Regional
                         Federal                 State               County/Local

.   Agriculture         Soil Conservation    Dept. of Agriculture  Soil Conservation
                          Service                                    Districts

.   Silviculture       Forest Service       Dept. of Natural
                                                Resources

.   Mining             Federal  Bureau of    Dept. of Mining
                          Mines

.   Construction       Dept.  of  Housing      Dept. of Trans.        County/Municipal
                       & Urban  Dev.                                   Engineer
                      Dept.  of  Trans.                             Municipal Bldg.
                                                                      Inspector
                                           7-22

-------
Urban Runoff
Hydrologlc Modi*
   flcatlon

Source Affecting
Ground Water

Residual Waste
  Disposal
Public Land/Re-
 source Mgmt.
 Activities
 Affecting
 Above Non-
 polnt Sources
   Federal

Dept. of Housing &
    Urban Dev.
(Flood Insurance
    Program)

Dept. of Army,
Corps, of Engineers
Dept. of Interior
Bureau of Land Mgmt.
Bureau of Reclama-
     tion
Forest Service
National Park Serv.
Federal Power Comm.
Dept. of Army, Corps
    of Engineers
                          Regional
    State               County/Local

                       County Municipal
                            Engineer
                       Sanitary Sewage
                             Authority
                      State Dept. of Health  Local Dept. of Health
                                             Regional  County and
                                             Municipal Departments
                                                of Sanitation
State Land Resource
   Managing Agencies
County, Local Parks
    Departments
                The analysis  of existing  programs  having  the  potential  to  Implement
            nonpblnt source management  should  lead to  specific  proposals for organ-
            izations to Implement  the management practices  developed  1n the technical
            phase of planning.   Depending on the results  of this analysis, the
            function of technical  development  of proposed best  management  practices
            may be delegated  to an agency having particular expertise 1n nonpolnt
            source management.   Whatever  agency has the responsibility  for technical
            development of BMPs, there  should  be close coordination between the
            technical  phase of  BMP development and the selection of management
            agencies to supervise  BMP implementation.

        D.   Development of Alternative  Management  Plans

            1.   Propose Alternative Management Options

                For each category  of sources and each  major technical alternative
            for BMP management,  options to Implement the  BMP  should be  proposed.
            These options  should Identify the  source of legal authority for the
            management practice  (Including proposed schedules for enabling legis-
            lation, 1f necessary), a proposed  financial program Identifying
            existing or new sources of  funding, and the agency(s) proposed to
                                       7-23

-------
 provide  technical  assistance, supervise, monitor, and enforce BMP
 implementation.   In addition where many agencies are proposed for
 different  source  categories, the management structure to coordinate
 these  agencies and to  integrate nonpoint source management into
 the overall  State  WQM  Plan should be identified.

 2.  Assessment of  Management Alternatives for Consistency with
    Technical ProposaTs

    Since  technical BMP proposals may vary in their complexity, it
 is important to determine whether the agency proposed to supervise
 their  implementation has the necessary manpower, expertise, and
 financial  resources to administer the particular technical proposal.

 3.  Screen in Terms of Implementation Feasibility

    Before final selection of BMPs, the proposed management approach
 for each category  of sources should be evaluated according to the
 criteria of implementation feasibility discussed in Chapter 3.  The
 following evaluation should be made for the BMPs proposed for each
 category of sources:

    .  legal authority:  Is there adequate authority, or an adequate
       legislative proposal to acquire the authority called for
       in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act and for the regulatory program
       specified in Section 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act?

    .  financial  capacity:  For public sector projects, are there
       adequate funds or a specific legislative proposal to acquire
       such funds?  For BMP costs to be borne by private landowners,
       are the costs reasonable and affordable; is adequate provision
       made to phase implementation of the BMP according to the
       capacity of landowners to bear the costs?  For overall  program
       management, are there sufficient resources devoted to super-
       vision of the entire nonpoint source management effort, in
       addition to the separate administrative costs of each program
       element?

    .   institutional  feasibility:   Is the management approach  practical
       in the sense of relying on  available programs where possible?
       Is the management approach  administratively coherent, with
       adequate supervision of each program element and of the program
       as a whole?  Is there broad public understanding and acceptance
       for the management approach?

4.  BMP Selection

    The selection  of BMPs should be undertaken as part of the  overall
plan evaluation and selection process described 1n Chs.  13 and 14.
                            7-24

-------
                                CHAPTER 8

                       POINT SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1  Introduction
     Chapter 3 presents a framework for systematic evaluation and selection
of pollution control strategies for all sources of pollutants.  This chapter
describes technical planning considerations for developing alternatives
abatement measures for point sources of pollution.  The point sources con-
sidered in this chapter are discharges from municipal  treatment plants,
combined sewer overflows, and industrial waste effluents.  Disposal  of
wastewater sludge, and wastewater reuse are also discussed.  Balanced
consideration of measures other than the traditional capital  intensive
approaches of point source control is stressed in this chapter.
Alternatives considered should encompass all applicable structural  and
management measures for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating,
separating, recycling, reclaiming and disposing of municipal  and industrial
wastewater and combined sewer discharges.


8.2  Planning Approach for Point Sources

     A.  Inputs

         1.  Water Quality Analysis

             —  problem assessment:

                 The problem assessment should indicate where planning is
             needed for existing point source problems.  A determination
             of planning needed to prevent future problems can be made
             by evaluating projections of future population,  employment,
             land use, wasteloads.

             —  segment classification:

                 The segment classification should indicate the type of
            •wasteload constraints that will  be required of point source.
             Where waste load allocation is required,  it is important
             to Choose a planning approach allowing consideration of
             tradeoffs between all  sources requiring load allocation.

             —  maximum allowable loads:

                 In Water Quality Limited segments, the maximum allowable
             load for pollutants  provides the planning constraints that
             should be met in developing abatement strategies.


                                   8-1

-------
         2.  Priorities

             Before developing abatement strategies for point sources, it
         is important to determine the level of detail of the outputs of
         these strategies.  If the abatement measures are to be imple-
         mented in the next five years, all the outputs for point sources
         specified in Table 3.1 should be developed at a level of detail
         sufficient for implementing the outputs.  (The relationship
         between the facility plans outputs provided in the State WQM Plan
         and further facility planning is described in Chapter 2).  Where
         the particular element of the plan cannot be implemented in the
         next five years, the level of detail may consist of a more
         general assessment having the type of information indicated in
         table 3.2

     B.  Choice of Methods (and Level of Detail) for Relating Water Quality
         Analysis to Development of Abatement Measures

         1.  Water Quality Limited Segments - Area Approach

             The area approach to developing abatement measures is described
         in Chanter 3.  A detailed procedure to carry out this approach,
         relating pollution loads to land use plans and policies is described
         in Chapter 6.  It is recommended that the area approach be followed
         for developing point source subplans in Water Quality limited
         segments.  The reason for this recommendation is that the area
         approach encourages evaluation of alternative levels of abatement
         and alternative discharge locations for point sources, allowing
         the maximum flexibility in the waste load allocation process.

         2.  Effluent Limited Segments

             The waste load constrained in effluent limited segments would
         be established in the effluent guidelines for the particular point
         source category.

     C.  Development of Abatement Plans

         The following sections (Chapter 8.3-8.6) describe procedures for
     developing alternative abatement plans for municipal, private waste-
     water combined sewer, and industrial  point sources.   These alternatives
     should be combined into alternative area subplans for point sources as
     described in Section 8.7.

8:3  Municipal  Wastewater Facilities

     A.  Introduction

         Planning of municipal facilities  within an area  should provide for
     (1) cost-effective, environmentally sound, and implementable treatment
                                   8-2

-------
 works  to  meet  the  present  needs of the area and  (2) a general program
 to  phase  facilities  development to meet future needs as projected in
 an  overall  land  use  plan.   Balanced evaluation of nonpoint source
 abatement and  prevention measures as well as point source measures
 should precede final  selection of the treatment works.  Treatment
 works  must  meet  the  applicable requirements of Sections 201(g), 301,
 and 302 of  the Act.   As a  minimum, facilities plans must provide
 for application, by  1983,  of the best practicable waste treatment
 technology  (BPWTT).   Where necessary to meet wasteload allocation
 constraints consistent with water quality standards, plans must
 provide for measures  to further reduce pollutants.  The determina-
 tion of BPWTT, or  measures providing for higher treatment levels if
 needed, is  based upon evaluation of technologies included under each
 of  the following waste management techniques:

    a.  treatment  (biological or physical-chemical) and
        discharge  to  receiving waters;

    b.  treatment  and reuse;

    c.  land application or land utilization

    Comparlsion of the above techniques and determination of BPWTT for
 a specific  case should include considerations for management of nutri-
 ents in wastewater and sludges, development of integrated (solid, liq-
 uid, and  thermal)  waste facilities, and enhancement of recreation and
 open space  opportunities.

    This  section covers major aspects of the municipal  wastewater
 facilities  planning presented in the EPA document entitled "Guidance
 for Facilities Planning".

 B.  Delineate Service Area

    Service areas  for municipal waste treatment facilities should
 be delineated based on the population, economic,  land use, and
waste  load  projections discussed in Chapter 3.   In general,  a
 treatment service  area includes the sewered areas tributary  to an
 Integrated waste treatment system plus those additional  portions
of watersheds likely to be connected over the planning  period..

    The delineations should outline, on at least  a preliminary
basis, geographic areas sufficient to permit cost-effectiveness
analyses of alternatives,  including waste treatment methods  and
ultimate disposal options for sludge and treated  effluents.   Also,
each of the areas should be of sufficient size to consider cost
savings, management advantages, or environmental  gains  resulting
from reglonalization.  Given these.concepts, service areas for
waste treatment systems and ultimate sludge disposal  or utilization
are not necessarily the same.  For example, sludge from two  (or  more)
                            8-3

-------
separate treatment service areas could be land-filled or used as a
soil-conditioner at a-common site; in this case, the sludge disposal
service area would include the separate treatment service areas.

    In smaller SMSAs  (less than 100,000), or those with few political
entities or public bodies having jurisdiction over sewage disposal,
the service areas should encompass either the entire SMSA or the core
city plus contiguous urban places.  The fact that service areas are
delineated does not necessarily imply that all land within a service
area should, be serviced by municipal sewage collection and treatment
systems.  In fact, in many less densely populated areas, or parts of
urbanized areas there are economic and environmental advantages to on
site disposal of waste;  The service area delineation merely represents
a potential area in which to investigate possible municipal treatment
systems.

    In larger urban areas, single facilities plan coverage of the
entire area may be unattainable or inappropriate for institutional,
geographic, or other reasons.  Service areas should still encompass
contiguous waste treatment systems when these conditions occur:  1)
such systems may require major new or expanded treatment plants, sludge
disposal or effluent disposal facilities; and, 2) system interconnection
or joint facilities would be feasible alternatives.

    Recognizing the considerations discussed above, service area
boundaries for non urban areas should encompass the entire com-
munity including those areas subject to future urban development.
Where cost savings or other advantages might result from waste
treatment system interconnect joint effluent or sludge disposal faci-
lities, or collective management for two or more nearby communities,
the service area should encompass the community group.  If a community
is isolated sufficiently to preclude regionalization, the service
area should be confined to that community.

    The delineated service areas should be outlined on maps to the
same scale as those used in the projected population and land-use
presentation (Chs. 3 and 6).

C.  Inventory Existing Conditions and Determine Existing Flows

    The existing waste treatment systems must be accurately assessed
to establish a basis for planning any systems modifications.  Where
available, the Phase I Plans will provide essential information on
municipal  point sources, waste loads, wastewater flows, and water
quality within the planning area.  Data from permits would be an
additional source of information.  At the start of planning, this data
should be reviewed and supplemented as necessary.  The assessment of
each existing waste treatment system should include a performance
evaluation of the treatment plant, including operating problems and
personnel, and sampling and maintenance program.  Data on current


                             8-4

-------
performance of many treatment facilities will be available from
State water quality agencies as a result of their programs involving
operations and maintenance visits and consultations.  An infiltration/
inflow analysis should also be made on a preliminary basis to deter-
mine whether excessive infiltration or inflow exists and, on a pre-
liminary basis, costs of any corrective measures required.  Should
the analysis determine the existence of excessive infiltration/inflow,
a more detailed sewer system evaluation survey should be made to
specifically define problems and determine types and costs of correc-
tive measures.  A State WQM planning grant cannot be used for the
detailed sewer evaluation survey; however, grant assistance may be
obtained under a construction grant (40 CFR 35, Subpart E).  To
assure satisfactory management of residual wastes, an inventory of
sludge utilization and disposal should also be conducted.

D.  Estimate Future Waste Loads and Flows

    To provide a basis for planning and preliminary design of
facilities, future variations of waste loads and the flows over the
planning period must be forecast.  As described in Chapter 3, forecasts
must be based on economic and demographic growth trends for the
planning area and should be based upon evaluation of land use plans,
and any growth contraints imposed by air quality implementation
plans, zoning restrictions or permit conditions.   The effects of
selected flow and waste reduction measures, including sewer system
rehabilitation to correct infiltration/inflow, should also be
reflected in the flow forecasts to permit subsequent calculation of
waste treatment system cost reductions.

    1.  Land Use and Development

        Wastewater load and flow projections should conform to the
    time phased development shown on the land use projections that
    are proposed as being compatible with water quality goals.   (See
    Chapter 3 and 6).   To avoid changes  in the growth pattern from
    that projected in  the land use plan,  schedules of hookups should
    be developed through a regulatory program.   (See Chapter 9).

    2.  Flow and Waste Load Forecasts

        The expected economic and population growth patterns  for
    the planning area, as projected in the land use plan,  should
    be translated into estimates of wastewater flows and waste loads,
    with a  realistic allowance for unpreventable  infiltration.   The
    estimated future changes  in flows and waste loads from industries
    served  by the municipal  system should reflect application of EPA
    pretreatment requirements for existing and new industries plus any
    expected process changes  affecting wastewater and treatment
    residuals.   Wastewater flow forecasts should  also include the
                              8-5

-------
    and anticipated discharges from septic tank pumpages into the
    systems.

    3.  Sludge Generation Forecasts

        The volumes and composition of sludge which will be
    generated from treatment of wastewater should be estimated.
    These forecasts should be modified to reflect the different
    treatment levels characteristic of the alternative systems
    considered.

E.  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

    Since the facilities element of State WQM planning does not
necessarily imply larger interconnected waste treatment systems
for an area, the initial planning for facilities systems should
involve a systematic comparison of many subsystem, as well  as
system, options.  For each municipal wastewater system, subsystem
options should be identified.  Compatible options should be
combined into preliminary treatment systems consistent with the
alternative wasteload allocation sets.

    By using a rough estimation of cost and impact, the components
of the alternative facility plan should then be screened on the
basis of goal attainment, monetary costs, and environmental,
social, and economic effects.  Legal or institutional constraints
and implementation feasibility should also be considered.  Unacceptable
alternatives should be rejected; those remaining should be developed
into a limited number of proposals, employing each of the previously
discussed waste management techniques.  Adequate justification
should be given for eliminating any of those techniques at any
stage.

    The following paragraphs briefly describe major factors that
might be considered and procedures that might be applied in the
development and evaluation of alternative wastewater systems.
However, the following factors should only be considered to the
extent needed to develop the required facilities element of a
State WQM Plan:

    1.  Flow and Waste Reduction Measures

        The Act encourages the use of a variety of methods
    where cost-effective for reducing both the volume and amount
    of waste within municipal wastewater systems.  Some of the
    following measures would reduce not only wastewater loads,
    but water supply demands as well:
                              8-6

-------
     a.   Infiltration/Inflow reduction  by  sewer  system
     rehabilitation  and  repair,  and elimination  of roof and
     foundation  drains.

     b.   Household water conservation measures,  such as
     water  saving appliances  and fixtures.

     c.   Water and wastewater rates that impose  costs
     proportional to water used and wastewater generated;
     use  of water meters.

     d.   Educating the public on the value of water resources
     and  the need to reduce water consumption.
2.  Industrial Service

    Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective.  Special requirements, issues, and procedures
associated with industrial use of a municipal  system are
covered in section 8.6 of this chapter.

3.  Sewers

    a.  System Configuration and Capacity

        Planning of a  waste treatment system includes the
    comparison of alternative arrangements  of  interceptors
    and collection pipes, including phased  development,  to
    assure selection of a cost-effective configuration.   In
 .   newly developing portions of the planning  area,  the
    capacities of the  system, in particular the larger
    lateral  and interceptor sewers, should  generally accommodate
    not more than the  20-year wastewater projection  based
    upon the land use  plan.   However,  choice of interceptor
    and collection pipe sizes should reflect cost-effective
    analysis of alternatives  over the  planning  period.   The
    practice of designing interceptors  for  long-term projected
    growth or ultimate development within the  service area
    should be discouraged.  As an alternative,  consideration
    should be given to interim (short-term)  treatment works
    for outlying  areas or to  septic tank  units  for individual
    or clustered  developments in  low density areas.

    b.   Sewer Hookup Schedules

        Since the  capacity of the  facilities and design of
    the  treatment  system  is based  on flow projections which
    conform  to a  time-phased  land  use plan,  it  is necessary
                         8-7

-------
    to establish a schedule for hookups in the system.  A
    hookup schedule is important in managing the system over
    time  in order to prevent growth from exceeding the designed
    capacity of the system.

        In the event that a violation of an NPDES permit
    occurs due to overloading of treatment works, the Regional
    Administrator (or the State if the NPDES program has been
    delegated to a State) may, under authority of Section
    402(h) of the Act, seek a court order imposing a ban or
    restrictions upon sewer connections.  A series of planning
    and management actions to prevent overloading of facilities
    may be included as special conditions to permits issued to
    facilities in danger of imminent overloading.

        Since the State WQM Plan is to include a regulatory
    program to regulate location of pollutant discharges in the
    area, and since the management agency(s) must possess
    authority to refuse to treat wastes from a municipality or
    subdivision which does not comply with the plan, a schedule
    of hookups 1s an appropriate management approach for carrying
    out this regulatory program.  The enforcement of the schedule
    through the regulatory program may require specific authorizing
    legislation and will  therefore necessitate thorough legal
    analysis.  (See Chapter 9.)

4.  Waste Management Techniques

    Alternative waste management techniques must be evaluated
to determine the BPWTT for meeting applicable effluent
limitations, including those related to wasteload allocation.
Information pertinent to this evaluation is contained in an
EPA document entitled "Alternative Waste Management Techniques
for Best Practicable Waste Treatment" (Proposed 1n March
1974).  Selection of a waste management technique is closely
related to effluent disposal choices.  Preliminary alternative
systems featuring at least one technique under each of the
three categories (treatment and discharge, wastewater reuse,
and land application or land utilization) should be identified
and screened.  Techniques which incorporate wastewater reuse
and land application should be utilized whenever possible.   A
more detailed proposal should be prepared for each unless
adequate justification for eliminating a technique during the
screening process is presented.

    Published cost,  performance, and other information is
available for many alternative treatment technologies.
Preliminary screening of these technologies Involves comparing
costs and relative treatment capabilities.
                          8-8

-------
 a.   Treatment and  Discharge

     Treatment and  discharge  techniques  Include  the
 following:

     (1)   Biological  treatment  including ponds,  activated
     sludge,  trickling  filters,  processes for nitrification,
     and  denitrification;

     (2)   Physical-chemical treatment including  chemical
     flocculation,  filtration,  activated carbon, breakpoint
     chlorination,  ion  exchange, and ammonia stripping.

 b.   Wastewater Reuse

     In comparing waste management techniques and
 alternative  systems, wastewater reuse applications
 should be evaluated as a means of contributing  to local
 water management goals.  Such applications include:

     (1)   Industrial processes;

     (2)  Groundwater recharge for water supply enhancement
     or preventing  salt water Intrusion;

     (3)   Surface water supply enhancement;

     (4)   Recreation lakes;

     (5)   Land reclamation.

    Wastewater reuse needs should be identified and
 defined by volume, location, and quality.   These needs
may  Influence the location of the treatment facilities,
 the  type of process selected, and the degree of treatment
 required.

 c.  Land Application

    The application of wastewater effluents on  the
 land Involves the recycling of most of the organic
matter and nutrients by biological  action  1n the soil
and plant growth, generally providing a high degree of
pollutant removal.   Planning of the land application
techniques should reflect criteria  and other Information
contained 1n the EPA document on "Alternative Waste
Management Techniques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment."
                      8-9

-------
               Land application techniques  include:

               (1)   Spray,  ridge and  furrow,  and  flood
               irrigation techniques;

               (2)   Overland flow;

               (3)   Infiltration-percolation;

               (4)   Other approaches  such as  evaporation,
               deep well  injection, and  subsurface  leach
               fields.

 5.   Residual  (Sludge)  Management

     Evaluation of  alternatives for management  of residual
 wastes from municipal  treatment works should be  closely
 coordinated with the evaluation of each waste  management
 technique.  Such evaluation includes the evaluation  of
 alternative combinations of sludge processing  and  utilization
 techniques  for satisfactorily and economically disposing of
 quantities  of residual wastes.  Care must  be taken to assure
 that these  methods do  not appreciably add  to air quality or
 water quality problems.

     A variety of sludge  processing and  utilization techniques
 are available including  (a) thickening, (b)  chemical conditioning,
 (c) chemical  stabilization, (d) aerobic and  anaerobic digestion,
 (e) dewatering, (f) thermal processing  for volume  reduction
 or  drying,  (g) composting,  and (h) land spreading  as a soil
 conditioner.   Sludge disposal  options are  limited  primarily
 to  land disposal,  land utilization,  and incineration, and
.must comply with the EPA policy statement  on acceptable
 methods, based on  current knowledge, for the ultimate disposal
 of  sludges  from publicly-owned wastewater  treatment  plants.

     Disposal  techniques  such as soil conditioning  and land
 utilization which  realize  the nutrient  value of  sludge as
 fertilizer  should  be given  special attention in  adopting a
 sludge disposal program  for the area.   Furthermore,  consideration
 should be given to local air pollution  control regulations
 and energy  rquirements if incineration  is  an option.
 (Guidance on  management  of  residuals in general  is contained
 in  Chapter  7.)
                           8-10

-------
 6.   Location  of  Facilities

     Evaluation and  choice of sites for treatment plants,
 Interceptors, transmission lines, outfalls, pumping plants,
 and  other major  works should comply with the land use plan.
 Factors  to  be considered in selecting location include:

     a.   Possible odor and aesthetic problems;

     b.   Flexibility to convert to possible future reuse
     and  additional  pollution abatement needs;

     c.   Special  protection of potable, shellfish, and
     recreation waters;

     d.   Avoidance of floodplain and wetland areas, if
     practicable;

     e.   Induced  growth impacts in flood hazard or environmentally
     sensitive areas.

 7.   Regionalization

     Regionalization options should be evaluated to assure
 use  of the most  cost-effective facilities systems consistent
 with the planning area's waste management needs.   Various
 combinations of  treatment plants, interceptors and other
 works should be  identified; and each should be consistent
 with a target wasteload allocation.   The economy of scale
 associated with  a large treatment plant should be balanced
with consideration of environmental  and social  Impact,
 especially if the inter-connected system would tend to
 induce growth patterns conflicting with the land  use plan.
 The effect of streamflow depletion due to transport of
wastewater to a downstream plant, and the impact  of concentrating
wastes from plant effluents at fewer points should also be
 considered.   The evaluation of regionalization might lead to
 reconsideration of the service areas that were Initially
chosen for developing the facilities element of the State
Water Quality Management Plan.

8.  Phased Development

    a.  General

        In examining the cost-effectiveness of a  waste
    treatment system, two alternatives should  be  considered:
     (1) Initial  provision of sufficient capacity  to serve
                          8-11

-------
the needs of the area as projected over the planning
period; and (2) phased development of systems and
modular construction of -individual facilities within
the system to meet future needs.  The phased and modular
development option would involve planning for construction
of facilities and facilities components at intervals
throughout the planning period to accommodate projected
increases of waste loads and flows.  The following
factors should be included in an assessment of the
options:  the service life of the treatment works; the
incremental costs; and flow and waste load forecasts.

b.  Reserve and Excess Capacity

    The planning of waste treatment facilities will
normally provide some excess capacity to allow for
daily, wet weather, and seasonal flow variations as
well as projected flow increases.  The system capacity
excess should be examined from a cost-effective viewpoint,
particularly for treatment plants serving areas experiencing
growth where phased construction may be more cost-
effective than initial construction for long-term
capacity needs.  Provision of holding storage at the
plant intake should also be considered to equalize
daily flow variations.

c.  Phased Development of System

    Phased development of the system is advisable in
rapidly growing areas, in areas where the projected
flows are uncertain, or where full initial development
of facilities would tend to distort growth from that
shown In the area land use plan.  The phasing should
provide sufficient excess capacity at the beginning of
each construction phase to accommodate expected flow
increases during the phase.  Phasing of sewers may
involve provision of parallel or multiple systems or
extension of single lines.

d.  Modular Development of Individual Facilities

    Modular development of Individual facilities is
advisable In areas where high growth rates are projected,
where the required degree of treatment must be upgraded
later In the planning period, or where existing facilities
are to be used initially but phased out later.  Modular
development would avoid long-term operating problems
                      8-12

-------
 associated with underutilization of certain components
 of the plant.  Where modular development is used, provisions
 should be made during the design of the initial facilities
 for future additions.

 e.  Interim Facilities

     After the State WQM plan has been approved, no
 NPDES permit issued may be in conflict with that plan.
 Since interim facilities receive permits, they must be
 considered in the planning process.   Such facilities
 are often used to treat wastes from areas not immediately
 serviceable by larger, often regional, treatment facilities.
 Careful  consideration should be given to the way in
 which interim facilities will  be used, especially in
 high growth areas.   Since such facilities have the
 potential  for inducing development  that may be in
 conflict with regional  service plans,  special  attention
 should be given to  the interim facilities'  eventual
 connection to the larger system.  Thus,  in  planning for
 interim facilities,  particular consideration should be
 given to:

     (1)    Ensuring  that the  area  to  be served  by the
     interim facility is in conformance with land use
     plans  and controls;

     (2)    Ensuring,  through  the establishment  and
     enforcement of a schedule  of  hookups  for the life
     of the facility,  that the  interim  facility will
     not  be overloaded;

     (3)    Ensuring when  the  facility is no  longer
    needed,  that its  service area is transferred to  a
    permanent  facility;

     (4)    Reusing the abandoned facility for some other
    needed function, such as use as a pumping station;

     (5)    Ensuring proper operation, maintenance, and
    inspection.  (Trained, certified operators should
    be used.)

f.  Flexibility and Reliability

    Flexibility and reliability should be considered
throughout the planning of municipal  facilities.  As men-
tioned in previous sections,  flexibility factors include
                      8-13

-------
             possible upgrading of water quality objectives, future
             application of new technologies, future application of
             wastewater reuse, modular and phased development of facilities,
             and temporary treatment plants.

                 Reliability considerations are important since a
             risk of failure exists in any wastewater system.  With
             a view toward minimizing this risk, the probability,
             duration, and impact of such failures should be considered
             for each system and its components.

8.4  Other Point Sources

     The identification of other point sources within the planning
area, possible control options, and feasible controls should be included
in point source subplans.  In particular, private wastewater systems
should be evaluated, preferably in conjunction with the municipal
wastewater facilities.  Information regarding planned capacity of such
systems should be sought from private wastewater management agencies.
Planned capacity should be reviewed for consistency with future waste
load reductions.  Any point sources required to obtain permits should
be included in point source subplans.

8.5  Combined Sewer Discharges

     A.  Introduction

         Combined sewer overflows can be sources of significant
     quantities of pollutants.  Since they are an integral  part of the
     municipal wastewater collection system, untreated overflows from
     combined sewers pose an added threat to public health.

         Various techniques for controlling and treating combined
     storm and sanitary sewer flows can be incorporated into alternative
     areawide subplans for point sources.  Quite often, these problems
     can be substantially reduced through effective control of the
     sources and/or the runoff before it enters the combined sewer
     systems, as is discussed in Chapter 7.  The most cost-effective
     combination of controlling the problems at their source or controlling
     the runoff once it enters the stormwater system can be made in
     the later steps of the planning process where alternative subplans
     for point and nonpoint sources are combined into alternative
     plans.  (Chapter 3.6.E.)
                                   8-14

-------
 B.  Inventory Existing Conditions

     An inventory of existing combined sewer systems should be
 conducted to the extent data are available; the inventory should
 include locations and condition of intake bypasses, pipes, regulatory
 equipment and other features, and an assessment of both the
 existing performance of the system and its optimum performance
 with intensive management,  operation and maintenance.   Information
 on flow variations, design  capacities, wastewater constituents,
 and waste loads is also needed.   Where flow records are lacking,
 estimates of overflows and  discharges based upon observations
 should be correlated with rainfall  amounts.   Wasteload  estimates
 should be based on pollutant sampling and subsequent tests for
 dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical  oxygen demand (BOD),  ammonia
 nitrogen (NH3-N), phosphates (PoOg)'  total  solids (TS),  suspended
 solids (SS), toxics, and both total  and fecal  coliform  counts.

 C.   Estimate Future Waste Loads  and  Flows

     To provide a basis for  planning  of control measures,  forecasts
 should be made of the waste load magnitude,  intensity,  and duration
 of the problems associated  with  discharges  throughout the planning
 period.   Information on existing discharges  can  provide  a convenient
 base for the estimates.   Flow volumes  and waste  loads during
 storm  periods should be related  to the tributary  drainage area;
 the resulting information can permit  forecasting  of  flow  volumes
 and waste load increases  resulting from future changes  in  land
 use and  development.   This  information  can provide the basis  for
 estimating flows in  combined  sewer systems within the planning
 area.  Adjustments  in projections should  be made  to  account for
 density  changes,  reduction  in pollutant discharges due to  future
 protection of environmentally sensitive areas as  reflected  in the
 land use  plan,  and probable flow and waste reduction measures.

 D.   Develop  and  Evaluate Alternatives

    The development  of  alternative areawide control of combined
 sewer  overflows  Involves the  systematic comparison of feasible
 control options,  both structural and non-structural.  Operational
 strategies should be  explored for the entire system to maximize
 use of the system capacity.    EPA research has demonstrated many
 types of  control and  treatment techniques for combined sewer
overflows.  Among these, storage options, both upstream from the
system or within the  system, appear feasible.  However,  this
capacity would generally be limited to the most highly polluted
 initial storm runoff from a  low-frequency storm event (one chance
in one, to one chance in five of being equalled or exceeded
during any single year).
                              8-15

-------
    Specific factors to be.considered in the development evaluation
of combined sewer discharge subplan components are contained in
the following paragraphs.   In general, the most cost-effective
solution will be a mixture of operation/maintenance and construction
techniques.

    1.   Flow and Waste Reduction

        A variety of techniques can be used for reducing flow
    volumes and waste amounts which enter the system.   Consideration
    of these techniques should be coordinated with nonpoint
    source control  options planned for the tributary drainage
    area.  They include:

        a.  Reduce disturbance of land cover and maintain surface
        infiltration capacities;

        b.  Control  patterns and densities of urban development;

        c.  Reduce nonpoint source runoff through control measures
        for urban and construction activities;

        d.  Preserve or manage lands that have natural  or existing
        characteristics for retarding or reducing flow  and surface
        pollutants;

        e.  Control  surface runoff and in-system runoff by use of
        permeable material  for paving, flow retardation structures,
        and other means of storing and retarding runoff,  including
        planned intermittent shallow flooding of parking  areas,
        streets and  other  surfaces where damage would be  minimal.

        In State WQM planning,  emphasis should be placed  on use
    of  the above management practices as alternatives or  supplements
    to  the control measures discussed below,  as the former are
    generally far more cost-effective and less environmentally
    disruptive.   Management of runoff is further discussed in
    Chapter 7.

    2.   Alternative  Control  Techniques

        Alternative  control  techniques that should be considered
    in  combined sewer overflows can be grouped into the following
    five categories:

        a.  Separation of  sewage and storm collection systems
        (generally the most costly and least environmentally
        acceptable approach);
                              8-16

-------
             b.   Operational  control  of the existing  system (maximum
             use of the system storage by computerized flow regulation
             and subsequent treatment at the plant);

             c.   Storage at points, within the system  or at the  point
             of discharge,  and subsequent treatment;

             d.   Direct treatment of  overflows (in-line high rate
             treatment methods);

             e.   High level of maintenance including  periodic flushing
             of sewer systems.

8.6  Industrial  Wastewater

     A.   Introduction

         The overall  objective of planning for the control  and  treatment
     of  industrial  wastewater is  to provide the most  efficient  approach
     for serving the present and  future industrial  wastewater treatment
     needs of the area.   Treatment techniques must meet the applicable
     requirements of Sections 204, 301, 302, 304,  306, 307, and 316  of
     the Act.  Industries served  by municipal systems must comply with
     pretreatment and cost  recovery requirements.   Direct  discharge  of
     industrial  wastes to receiving waters must comply, at a minimum,
     with the provisions of the pertinent Effluent Limitations  Guidelines
     and New Sources Performance  Standards.   Higher treatment levels
     or  internal wasteload  reductions will be required where wasteload
     allocations dictate more stringent restrictions.   Application of
     higher treatment levels to meet  water quality standards can be
     mitigated through restricting the location of future  industrial
     development to areas where receiving waters can  more  readily
     assimilate the treated wastewater.  Control of industrial  location
     should be incorporated into  the  land use plan with recognition  of
     other constraints such as air quality control.

         The procedures  for evaluating industrial  waste sources and
     problems are basically parallel  to those presented for municipal
     wastewater systems  in  section 8.3 of this chapter.

         Wastewater flows from all major industrial sources in  the
     area should be accurately assessed.   Existing information  should
     be  used where available, including information on those industries
     that discharge into municipal systems.   To estimate design flows
     and wasteload reductions, information is needed  on average flow
     rates, flow variations,  seasonal variations,  wastewater characteristics
     and constituents, and  mode of disposal.  Particular emphasis
     should be given to  toxic constituents within  the wastes and to
     thermal  pollutants  present.   Forecasts should be made of the
                                      8-17

-------
future variations of wasteloads and flows over the planning
period and the discharge locations of those wastes.  These forecasts
should be based upon economic and industrial trends, types of
industries and constituents of associated wastes, location constraints
imposed by land use plans, and other restrictions imposed by
industrial permits and air quality implementation plans.  Attention
should be given to estimating waste sludges and slurries generated
by the industries as well as to the influence that industrial
loads will have on treatment plant sludge.  The effects of user
charges, pretreatment, and effluent limitations guidelines or
higher treatment levels on water and wastewater flows should be
incorporated into the projections.

B.  Develop and Evaluate Alternatives

    The development of alternative approaches for treatment of
industrial wastes and the degree of treatment involves a systematic
comparison of the following options:

    1.  Pretreatment and discharge of wastewater to municipal
    systems;

    2.  Direct treatment by individual industries and discharge
    of wastewater into receiving waters;

    3.  Direct treatment and discharge by groups of industries;

    4.  Reuse of industrial wastewater;

    5.  Land application.

    In conjunction with each of the above options, consideration
should be given to discharge to either water or land and to the
effects of flow and waste reduction on internal recycling and
process changes.   Areawide options should be identified in terms
of meeting wasteload allocation constraints and compared to
provide a rough assessment of costs and impact.  Consideration
should also be given to institutional constraints and feasibility.

    Specific issues that might be addressed in formulating alterntaives
are included in the following paragraphs:

    1.  Flow and Waste Reduction

        The flow and waste reduction as it relates to those
    industries that discharge or will discharge into municipal
    systems should be assessed.  Increasingly stringent technical
    and financial  requirements on industry should lead to process
    changes that use less water and create less wastewater.
                             8-18

-------
2.  Minimum Effluent Limitations

    Industrial wastewater treatment must comply with the
minimum treatment requirements for Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT) and Best Available Control Technology (BAT)
by 1977 and 1983, respectively.  These treatment requirements
are set forth for the industries cited in Section 306 of the
Act in a series of EPA documents entitled "Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for __________ Point Source Industry."  These
guidelines contain criteria for each industry for Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available (known commonly as
BPT) and Best Available Control Technology Economically
Attainable (known as BAT).  The guidelines also provide
minimum criteria for New Source Performance Standards and New
Source Pretreatment Standards.

3.  Joint vs. Separate Municipal and Industrial Facilities

    Municipal waste treatment systems should be planned to
serve industrial users of the area whenever practicable and
cost-effective.  Because of the unusual economy of scale
associated with larger municipal-industrial facilities, as
compared to separate municipal and industrial facilities, a
joint system will often be cost-effective.  In many cases,
however, it may be more economical to have separate industrial
treatment facilities because of the characteristics and
quantities of industrial waste, industrial pretreatment
requirements, and industrial locations and groupings which
facilitate joint industrial treatment and/or reuse of industrial
wastewater.  These considerations are also relevant to the
cost and effectiveness of sludge disposal options for each
alternative facility.

    Industrial use of municipal facilities should be encouraged
where total costs would be minimized.   Where industrial flow
handled by municipal  systems is significant, cost of separate
treatment of industrial wastes versus cost of pretreatment
and joint municipal-industrial facilities should be compared.
This involves comparing the incremental cost of the municipal
facilities required to transport, treat,  and dispose industrial
wastes (and the costs of corresponding pretreatment required)
with the cost of separate industrial  treatment and disposal
facilities of those wastes.  In particular, the analysis
should cover those industries desiring, but not receiving,
municipal  service when facilities planning is initiated.
                          8-19

-------
         4.  Pretreatment and Cost Recovery

             Industrial wastes served by municipal systems must comply
         with industrial pretreatment and cost recovery regulations.
         The pretreatment regulations basically require the removal of
         industrial waste constituents that are not compatible with
         the municipal wastewater treatment process.  Compatible
         wastes, generally BOO and suspended solids, can be passed to
         the municipal plant for treatment.  The cost recovery regulations
         prescribe that industrial users must bear a proportionate
         share of the cost of operating and maintaining the municipal
         system and must repay the portion of the Federal grant attributed
         to that waste.  Industrial sites should be located where
         receiving waters can more readily assimilate the residual
         wastes and associated nonpoint source runoff.  Such control
         of industrial locations should be incorporated into the land
         use plan and recognize other constraints such as air quality
         control.

8.7  Development of Alternative Subplans

     The alternative subplans for point source controls should correspond
to alternative wasteload allocation sets for design conditions for
meeting water quality standards under both dry weather and rainfall
conditions.  At least one subplan should be developed to correspond to
each wasteload allocation set.  Subplans for continuous point sources,
primarily from municipal and industrial treatment works, should satisfy
the wasteload allocation sets for dry weather conditions.  Subplans
for combined sewer flows should correspond to wasteload reductions for
design conditions reflecting rainfall.

     A.  Continuous and Seasonal Point Source Subplans

         Investigation of controls for municipal  and industrial wastewater
     may reveal  control options that do not correspond to the target
     wasteload reduction sets previously considered.  Additional
     wasteload reduction sets should be developed if necessary to
     enable consideration of reasonable point source control techniques.

     B.  Intermittent Point Source Subplans

         Subplans for Intermittent point sources  such as combined
     sewer discharges should correspond to target wasteload reduction
     sets prepared to enable standards to be met  under wet weather
     conditions.  As discussed 1n Chapter 3, calculation of treatment
     levels required to meet standards at wet weather conditions
     should be based on point source treatment levels established for
     dry weather conditions.   Thus, the additional wasteloads carried
     to streams  after rain should be dealt with through load reduction
     for intermittent point sources and nonpoint  sources.
                                  8-20

-------
C.  Disposal of Residual Wastes.

    Point source subplans should provide for the disposal  of
sewage treatment plant residual wastes and should conform with an
areawide program of solid waste disposal.

D.  Description of Alternative Subplans

    Following the screening of the system alternatives, the
following information on the alternative subplans should be
presented as an input to the development of pollution control
alternatives (refer to Chapter 3.6.E.).

    o  Wasteload characteristics of each alternative expressed
       in appropriate units for relating to the water quality
       prediction model;

    o  Total cost of each alternative expressed as its present
       value or average equivalent value of capital  and operating
       costs for the overall alternative and subsystem components;

    o  Reliability of each alternative and subsystem included
       in each alternative;

    o  Significant environmental effects of each alternative
       consistent with NEPA procedures, including a specific
       statement on future development impact;

    o  Contribution of each alternative to other water-related
       objectives of the planning area.
                            8-21

-------
                                 CHAPTER 9

          MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
9.1  Introduction

     Institutional arrangements for water quality management are the
formal structure of affected government units responsible for implementing
the plan.  Units within this structure must have adequate authority to
carry out the full range of management responsibilities (functions)
including, particularly, the regulatory and waste treatment management
requirements of the Act.  It is also essential that the arrangements
assure proper management and accountability for program operations.

     Sufficient institutional arrangements and authority for plan
implementation may exist when water quality management planning begins.
However, the specific authority required by the Act to be vested in the
implementing agency(s) will rarely have been delegated under State law
to any particular government entity.  Where sufficient institutional
arrangements and authority do not exist, enabling legislation must be
sought and/or arrangements for plan implementation must be created.
Management agency designations cannot be fully approved by EPA unless
the agencies have adequate statutory authority and the regulatory
programs required to implement the plan.

     The planning agency should take the lead role in formulating
institutional arrangements in conjunction with other State and local
agencies.  This chapter discusses the general responsibilities of the
implementing agency(s), the particular .tasks associated with the regulatory
and waste treatment management programs and issues associated with the
selection of appropriate institutional arrangements.

9.2  General Management Responsibilities

     The implementation of a State water quality management plan depends
upon the implementing agency(s) carrying out a number of related functions
for which they must be prepared through adequate authority, resources
and organization.

     A. Program Supervision and Coordination

        Institutional arrangements must assure that the overall program
     of waste treatment and regulation of pollution sources is coordinated,
     the plan Implemented, and its performance assessed.  It is essential
     that overall supervision of the program and accountability for its
     operation be achieved through the designation of an agency to possess
     the authority and resources for program oversight.  The selection of
     the appropriate unit to which this responsibility will be allocated


                                 9-1

-------
     will require careful  consultation among all  the major institutions
     affected by the State WQM planning process.   Program supervision
     is needed both at the State level and in each planning area.   A
     lead agency should also be selected for each planning area to
     supervise planning activities within the area.

     B. Continuous Planning

        Because implementing a program to abate all sources of water
     pollution will require continual  attention to changing conditions
     and pollution control needs, continuing planning is an integral
     part of the State WQM Plan.  This continuing planning responsibility
     must be allocated within the institutional framework.  This
     responsibility may be delegated to a lead agency within each  planning
     area.

     C. Fiscal Management

        A major responsibility of institutions implementing the State
     WQM Plan will be obtaining and budgeting the financial resources
     necessary for plan implementation.  Among other things, this
     will mean establishing financial  arrangements to support the
     regulatory and waste  treatment programs, together with arrangements
     for the funding of continuing planning operations and other
     administrative expenses.  Since financial arrangements are a  crucial
     component in an effective management strategy, their detailed
     operation must be clearly established prior to plan implementation.
     Financial arrangements are discussed in more detail in Chapter 12.

9.3  Regulatory Program

     The regulatory program formulated by the agency must contain  the
following elements specified in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C) of the Act:

     1. The identification of all pollution sources in each planning
     area and an indication of which agencies have been designated
     for their regulation.

     2. An Indication that agency(s) with regulatory responsibility
     possess the statutory authority, or have initiated legislative
     proposals to obtain the authority to carry out this activity
     and to utilize the specific forms of regulation called for in
     the program.

     3. An indication of which form(s) of regulation (land use, permits,
     licenses, pretreatment standards, associated fiscal policies, etc.)
     will be applied to pollution sources.
                                  9-2

-------
4. Specification of the technical requirements to be incorporated
into the regulation.

5. Provisions that those affected by regulation will have adequate
notice, rights of appeal, and other legal safeguards to encourage
full compliance.

A. Agency Selection

   Many existing agencies with responsibilities in the water quality
management area should be considered when arranging regulatory
responsibilities for specific pollution sources.  In addition to
various State and local agencies, it may be possible to utilize
regional agencies.  For the regulation of point sources, these
agencies may include state air and water pollution control  organiza-
tions, natural resource departments, public health agencies or
institutions responsible for the NPDES program.  Regional and local
agencies might include governments of general  jurisdiction, sewage
treatment agencies, or special district authorities.  For nonpoint
source regulation, agencies might include Soil Conservation Districts,
State agricultural and forestry agencies, State land management
bureaus, and State soil and water conservation agencies.

B. Statutory Requirements

   The Act requires that a regulatory program include the following:

   1. To the extent practicable, provide for waste treatment
   management on an areawide basis and for identification,  evalua-
   tion and control or treatment of all point and nonpoint
   pollution sources;

   2. Regulate the location, modification, and construction of
   any facilities within the area which may result in any discharge
   in such area;

   3. Assure that industrial or commercial wastes discharged Into
   any treatment works in the area meet applicable pretreatment
   requirements.

The regulatory program 1s also affected by Sec. 208(b)(2)(F-K) which
requires that water quality management plans:   1) set forth procedures
and methods (including land use requirements)  to control to the
extent feasible nonpoint pollution sources related to.agriculture,
silviculture, mining, and construction; and 2) establish processes
to protect ground and surface water quality through controls on
disposition of residual wastes and on land disposal of pollutants.
                             9-3

-------
      To meet the requirements of the Act, the implementing agency(s)
will need clear, explicit and overall authority for their regulatory
activities.  They should not assume that the authority is implicit
or inherent in existing law.  In some cases, the authority necessary
for some of the regulatory tasks may be present in governmental
entities, or combinations of them, to be included in the management
arrangements.  In other cases, additional authority may be necessary
to carry out specific regulatory responsibilities.  This may require
a delegation of authority from other state or federal agencies or
new state legislative enactments.  It may be possible to acquire
necessary regulatory authority by amending existing legislation.
Instead of enacting new legislation or amending existing laws, it may
be advisable to include in the institutional arrangements, agencies
which already have the needed authority but may not normally be
involved in water pollution control.  Examples of such agencies  would
include those with regulatory power over land use and construction
activity.

C. Regulatory Controls

   The regulatory controls are the specific measures used to regulate
a pollution source.  There are several general forms of regulation
which may be used individually, or in combination, for regulatory
purposes.  Additional regulatory controls are discussed in Ch. 6.

   1. Land Use.  Many land use control measures could be used in a
   regulatory program.  These include:

      - authority over the use and development of public lands;
      - soil conservation measures;
      - flood plain or other critical area controls;
      - zoning or subdivision controls exercised by local govern-
        ments in collaboration with the state water quality program

   2. Permits and Licenses.  It is often possible to create permit
   and/or licenses to accomplish many water quality management goals:

      - NPDES permits may be issued with effluent standards that
        assure desired water'quality;
      - pretreatment permits may be required for effluents entering
        wastewater treatment facilities to assure desired water
        quality;
      - permits for other point sources; or permits and licenses
        for activities generating nonpoint source pollution, may specify
        criteria for siting, design, and performance of facilities and
        operations.
                             9-4

-------
The effectiveness of any permit program depends upon the
availability of sanctions and adequate staffing.  It Is
Important that planning agencies give careful  attention  to
providing adequate sanctions for the program and to assuring
the availability of resources necessary to implement them.

3. Standards.   State water pollution control agencies have the
ability to create or to modify water quality standards.   State
agencies may set water quality standards at more stringent
levels than the national guidelines in order to implement anti-
degradation policies.  Like the use of permits for regulatory
purposes, the effectiveness of the program depends upon  the
availability and use of effective sanctions for noncompliance
and adequate staffing.

4. Fiscal Policies.  Various fiscal policies,  such as taxation
and pricing, may be used to complement the regulatory program.

   a. Pricing Policy

      Pricing policy can be used to reduce the flow of wastewater
   through metering.  In this regard, there are two decisions
   which must be made.  The first, for many areas, is whether or
   not to meter.  Unless there are meters, charges cannot be
   be assessed for Incremental use, and therefore a pricing
   policy cannot affect flow and waste reduction.  Savings from
   a reduction in water and wastewater flow must be balanced
   against the costs of metering.  Relevant savings and  costs
   apply to both the water and waste treatment systems.

      If a decision 1s made to meter, or to meter certain classes
   of users, the second decision 1s to determine the rate levels.
   To encourage cost-effective choices on the part of users,
   economic analysis indicates that at the margin of use, rates
   should equal marginal costs.  Rates should reflect the
   Incremental cost attributable to flow, the incremental cost of
   BOD removal, etc.

      In practice, and 1n current guidelines,  the emphasis on
   developing user charges has been on identifying average
   costs attributable to flow removal of BOD or other constituents.
   While rates based on such estimates are not Ideal, they have
   been effective in Inducing wastewater flow reduction  and
   industrial  process change.
                            9-5

-------
       b-  Taxation  Policy

          Differential  assessment  ratios can serve as an inducement
       to  keep  land  in  a nonurban  classifiaction for open space or
       low density.   Such a  policy permits owners to maintain land
       in  its present use, but does not prohibit its sale for a
       more intensive use at a later date.  The policy therefore
       tends to  slow down the rate of development, without completely
       prohibiting  it,  but gives no assurance that the most environ-
       mentally  sensitive areas are given the most protection.

          Other  taxation policies  should also be considered.  For
       example,  sales tax exemptions, property tax exemptions, and
       tax deductions can be used  to pay or subsidize private
       dischargers to encourage process changes to lower the genera-
       tion of pollutants.

       c.  Public Investment  Policy

          The waste  treatment facilities elements of the plan will
       have a direct  relationship  with public investment policy.
       The provision  of sewerage service is one of the more important
       public investment decisions an area can make.  Careful
       consideration  must be given to ensuring that other public
       investment policies and decisions are consistent with the plan.
       Most important among  these  are transportation, water supply,
       and  public facilities.  In  developing the plan it is necessary
       to  ensure that areas  scheduled to be sewered also receive
       other necessary public facilities and services.   Decisions
       about public  investments can be made to reinforce the plan
       and, in particular, the regulatory program.   For example,
       areas that are to be moderately developed should have a
       transportation system adequate for that level  but not for
       extensive development.

D. Technical Requirements

   To determine whether compliance with a regulatory program is
being achieved, the program should include a  specification  of the
type of pollutant to be regulated from each pollution  source and
the level  of control which is sought.   The regulatory  goal  should
be clearly understood by those responsible for assuring compliance
and those regulated by the program.   A more detailed discussion of
technical  requirements may be found  in Chapters 3.6, 6, 7,  8, 9,  10.
                             9-6

-------
     E. Procedural Requirements

        The regulatory program should Incorporate adequate compliance
     proecdures and arrangements to protect the interest of those
     affected by the program.  The procedural arrangements in the
     program should include at least the following:

        1. A procedure for giving adequate notice to those regulated
        by the plan concerning when, where, and how the regulation
        will apply to them.

        2. Information to regulated parties specifying how they are
        expected to conform to the regulatory program.

        3. A method for hearing and responding to grievances among
        those affected by regulation.

        4. A notice and hearing procedure for major regulatory decisions
        made by the management agency(s).

        5. Provisions for public participation in the administration
        of the regulatory program.

        In order to devise an effective regulatory strategy, it may be
     useful to take an inventory of existing regulation for each
     pollutant source category.  Based upon an assessment of the adequacy
     of existing regulation to deal with each pollutant problem, necessary
     modifications of existing regulatory approaches can be proposed.
     The need for additional legislation to establish adequate regulation
     of pollution sources should be assessed as early as possible in the
     planning process so that action may be taken to obtain the necessary
     regulatory authority.

9.4  Haste Treatment Management Program

     A waste treatment management program consists of all those activities
necessary to create, operate, finance, and enforce the waste treatment
provisions of the State WQM Plan.  It is particularly important that
management agency(s) obtain the required authority for these tasks as
described in Section 208(c)(2) of the Act and that they develop effective
management strategies for implementing these responsibilities.  Manage-
ment agencies should not rely upon implied powers for their authority
but should obtain explicit authority for their tasks.  It is very likely
that some of the required authority will not be possessed by management
agency(s) when planning begins and will have to be explicitly obtained
before the management phase begins.  The waste treatment management
tasks include all of those mentioned below.
                                   9-7

-------
 A. Securing Comprehensive Authority

    Section 208(c)(2)(A)  requires  that  there  be  adequate authority
 "to carry out appropriate portions  of  an  areawide  waste treatment
 management plan..."   The tasks  for  which  this authority is needed
 are described in Sec.  208(b).   Usually, this authority will  be
 distributed among several  agencies  in  the 208 area.  An important
 planning task is to  allocate, and sometimes  to  consolidate,  this
 authority among  those  units  responsible for  the management program.
 The plan must identify agencies necessary to carry out the plan.

    Section 208(c)(2)(B)  requires  that  there  be  adequate authority
 to "manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities..."
 in conformance with  the  plan.   In this regard,  the broad definition
 of "treatment works" set forth  in Sec. 212(2){B) and discussed in
 Chapter  8 should be  kept in  mind.   Institutional arrangements must
 incorporate some means of coordination among the agencies involved
 in administering the plan so that conflicts  can be resolved  and
 the plan properly enforced.

 B.  Operations Management

    The Act  requires in Section  208(c)(2)(C)  that there be adequate
 authority "directly or by contract, to design and  construct  new
 works, and  to operate  and  maintain  new and existing works as
 required  by (the)  plan..."   Generally, existing waste treatment
 agencies  already have  this authority.  However, where works are
 to  be located  outside  the  immediate jurisdiction,  or when discharges
 from outside  the immediate jurisdiction are  to be  accepted, adequate
 enabling  legislation to  meet this requirement may  have to be enacted.
 When approval  of a superior agency  is required, it should be secured
 before a  construction  grant application is made.  The management
 plan should provide sufficient manpower, fiscal  resources, and
 administrative expertise to assure that the customary management
 tasks associated with  such a waste treatment operation are properly
 discharged.

 C.  Financing

    The Act requires in Section 208(c)(2)(D) that there shall  be
adequate authority "to accept and  utilize grants, or other funds
 from any source for waste treatment  management  purposes."   Most
waste treatment agencies have this authority under state  law.
Where such authority does not exist, enabling legislation  must
 be passed.  Some States have arrangements  permitting State agencies
to redistribute grants among local government units,  but  the  Act
requires that the full  federal  share of funding  for treatment agencies
be distributed to the local units.
                             9-8

-------
        Section 208(c)(2)(E-G) deals with other authority required in
     relation to financial arrangements.  It should be noted that
     Sec. 204(b)(l)(A) and (B) require that all user charge arrangements
     must assure that each user pay his proportionate share of service
     costs and that there be full industrial cost recovery in the program.
     Many existing arrangements for assessing user charges are not
     likely to meet these tests.  See Chapter 10 for a discussion of
     user charges.

        In addition to these specific statutory requirements, the
     management agency(s) must be prepared to deal  with the customary
     fiscal responsibilities for program management, including the raising
     and transfer of funds internally, and the apportionment of responsibility
     for financing operating costs of the program among the constituent units.

     D. Sanctions

        An effective waste treatment program includes sanctions.   Section
     208(c)(2)(H) requires that there be adequate authority "to refuse to
     receive any wastes from any municipality or subdivision thereof,
     which does not comply with any provisions of (the) approved plan..."
     This authority, which may be exercised by an appropriate state agency,
     would be used only in extreme cases, and only if such measures as
     negotiations, fines, additional charges, moratoria, and court settle-
     ments have proven unsuccessful.

        The Act also requires in Sec. 208(c)(2)(I)  that there be adequate
     authority "to accept for treatment industrial  wastes."  This authority
     also extends to refusal  of wastes which do not meet applicable pre-
     treatment requirements as mentioned in Sec. 208(b)(2)(C)(iii).
     Other grounds for refusal exist when an industry does not comply with
     the State WQM Plan or violates applicable State or federal  discharge
     laws.

^•5  Basic Issues in Management Agency Designation

     Many issues will have to be resolved to determine the management
a9ency(s) and institutional arrangements necessary to meet the requirements
°T the Act.  The basic issues are:

     1. What agency will  exercise responsibility for overall program
     supervision and enforcement?

     2. To what extent will the affected local governments be involved
     in the management arrangements?

     3. Will Implementation responsibility be vested in a single agency
     or diverse agencies?
                                  9-9

-------
 4.  What will  be the relationship between the management agency(s)
 implementing  the State WQM Plan and those agency(s) implementing
 portions of the State WQM Plan in designated 208 areas?

 5.  If consolidation of agency responsibilities is undertaken, how
 will this be  accomplished?

 6.  What decisions will be taken to assure that local land use
 decisions do  not adversely affect water quality?

 7.  To what degree will agencies be supported from tax revenue?

 Attached (page 9-11)  is a chart which suggests where responsibility
 for major elements of plan implementation might be located.

 A. Options in Institutional  Arrangements

   The choice of the agency(s) to implement the State WQM Plan
will probably be influenced  by the number of governmental  units
which possess or can secure  the authority to manage the waste treat-
ment program and to implement the regulatory aspects of the  State
WQM Plan.   Generally,  there  are several  approaches to consider:

   1.  Single Planning  and Implementing Agency for Each Planning Area

      One  option is to establish  a  single planning and implementing
   agency  for all  the  area  included  in the plan.   This would facilitate
   greater coordination  and  continuity between  planning and  imple-
   mentation than  would  be possible  if these two  responsibilities
   were assigned to separate  entities.   If this approach is  taken,
   it  is important to  assure  that the  agency involved  has  sufficient
   statutory authority to carry out  the  requirements of both planning
   and implementation  and that elected officials  are included in
   the planning  process.  This option  might  be  especially  appropriate
   for carrying  out State WQM Plans  on public lands  where  a  state or
   federal agency  could assume both  planning and  implementation
   responsibility.

   2. Single  Planning  and a Single Implementing Agency for Each
     Planning Area

     Another  option is to divide the planning  and  implementation
   responsibilities between two separate agencies.   This would make
   day-to-day  coordination more difficult, but  might facilitate
   the implementation of  the  plan by requiring  less  reorganization
   of existing agency authorities than might otherwise  be  needed.
   Again, it is Important that the planning  agency have elected
                            9-10

-------
                                  POSSIBLE LOCATION OF MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES
                                            FOR MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Responsibilities
City/County
                                                               Regional
   Representatives of        Special
General Purpose Government  Districts
         State
General Management
  —supervision/coordination
  —continuous planning
  —fiscal management
                            X
                            X
                            X
Regulation
  —land use and other land
    management controls
  —permits and licenses
  —standards
  —fiscal policies
    X
    X
                                            X
                                            X
                                            X
                                            X
Waste  Management
  —operations management
  —financing
  —sanctions
    X
    X
    X
             X
             X
X
X

-------
officials on its Advisory Board.  This option might be necessary
if one agency conducted planning and another agency undertook
implementation responsibilities for public lands.

3. Single Planning Agency and Plural Implementing Agencies for Each
   Planning Area                                                  ~~

   A third option would be a single planning agency and more than
one management agency.  The use of multiple implementing agencies
might permit the gathering of sufficient authority and resources
for plan management without consolidation or other reorganization
of existing governmental bodies.  While coordination between the
planning agency and the management agencies would be more difficult,
the plan might be more rapidly implemented.  Economies of scale
in plan Implementation, however, would not be likely due to frag-
mentation.  Two approaches to securing supervision and enforcement
in plan implementation should be considered:

   a. A single supervisory agency with clear responsibility and
   resources for overall management, coordination, arid plan
   enforcement.

   b. Apportionment of some responsibilities for plan supervision
   and enforcement among several agencies with one given the lead
   role.

The advantage of fixing responsibility for supervision and enforce-
ment of the plan upon a single agency 1s clear accountability and
greater coherence in conflict resolution, plan coordination, and
overall management activities.  Dividing responsibility for program
supervision and coordination among several agencies while designating
one as the lead agency may disturb existing agency powers and relation-
ships less and reduce the difficulties of formulating a satisfactory '
management scheme.

4. Role of the State in Planning and Implementation under Options
   Presented Above

   For each planning area, the State may delegate both planning and
Implementation responsibilities.  However, 1f planning responsibilities
are delegated, a lead planning agency should be designated 1n each
planning area.  Under any of the options discussed above, the State
is ullmately responsible for assuring plan implementation.
                             9L12

-------
B.  Intergovernmental Agreements

    No matter which of the above options 1s chosen, formal Inter-
governmental agreements must be made.  Adjustments 1n the authority
and in services of local, regional, or state governments 1n a State
WQM area may be effected by different forms of legal agreement and
statutory authorization.

    1. Contract

      Where a single agency already encompasses the entire 5208 area,
   other participating local units (county, metropolitan government,
   or metropolitan special district, etc.) of government may contract
   with it to provide the services required.

   2. Joint Exercise of Powers

      Where they do not already exist, consolidated agencies may be
   established jointly by the participating local  units of government.
    Interlocal contracts or agreements may be utilized in such joint
   exercise of powers.

   3. Delegation of Responsibility

      Where a new areawlde agency is established,  the State may
   transfer functions to 1t from other local, regional, or state
   agencies through appropriate enabling legislation.

C. A-95 Review

    In accordance with OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
Circular A-95 Revised, dated November 13, 1973, all applicants under
federal programs which provide assistance to state, local, and area-
wide projects and activities planned on a mult1jurisd1ct1ona1 basis
must notify the appropriate state and areawlde planning and develop-
ment clearinghouse for review and comment.  The proposed application
will be reviewed for its consistency with areawlde plans including
comprehensive planning, environmental concerns, water supply and
distribution systems, sewage facilities and waste  treatment works,
and land use.  In most cases, either a regional planning agency or
COG serves as the regional clearinghouse, and, as  mentioned above,
may be utilized as the areawlde planning agency under S208.  As
part of Its review responsibilities, the State should ensure that
any part proposed applications are consistent with State WQM Plans.
On the national level, EPA reviews the annual certification of
State plans.
                             9-13

-------
                               CHAPTER 10

                         FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
10.1 Introduction
     Financial planning must be an integral part of the planning process.
The purpose of financial planning is to determine the methods and arrange-
ments which management agency(s) can use to finance the implementation of
a water quality management plan.  A financial plan including a budget should
be developed to describe the sources of financing for the three functions  to
be carried out by the management agency(s):

     1.  General management program, including program administration,
     supervision and coordination, and continuing planning;

     2.  Regulatory program, including administrative activities and
     possible capital outlays involved in compensation of land owners
     affected by regulation;

     3.  Waste treatment management program, including planning, construction,
     operation and administration of municipal facilities and other
     public sector pollution control projects (including nonpolnt source
     abatement projects).

     In order to budget for these activities of management agency(s), it
is useful to consider three types of costs that may be Incurred 1n carrying
out the activities:

     - capital construction costs;
     - operational costs and revenue;
     - indirect (overhead) costs.

     In developing a financial plan, it is useful to distinguish the
activities in need of financing, the management agency(s) proposed to
administer the element of a plan, and the possible means of financing the
capital, operating, and indirect costs associated with that element of the
Plan.  The following section discusses the requirements of the Act pertain-
ing to three types of financing Involved in carrying out a water quality
management plan.  The next section (Ch. 10.3) discusses how these requirements
might be met 1n order to carry out management agency functions.  The final
section (Ch. 10.4) suggests Information to include in a financial plan.

10.2 Requirements of the Act

     Provisions directly and indirectly affecting financial arrangements
are contained throughout the Act with those specifically affecting the State
WQM Plan set forth in Title II.
                                   10-1

-------
A.  Capital Construction Costs

    1.  8208(b)(2)(E) requires that the water quality management plan
    include identification of the measures necessary to carry out
    the plan including financing and the costs of carrying out the
    plan within the necessary period of time.  This applies to all
    capital costs associated with point and nonpoint source controls.

    2.  $204(a)(4) requires that the applicant proposing to construct
    treatment works agree to pay the non-Federal costs of such work.

    3.  S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the Administrator shall not
    approve any grant for any treatment works unless he shall first
    determine that the applicant has the financial capability to
    insure adequate construction, operation, and maintenance of the
    treatment works through the applicant's jurisdiction.

    4.  $208(c)(2)(C) requires that the waste treatment management
    agency(s) have adequate authority directly or by contract to
    design and construct new works and operate and maintain them.

    5.  S208(c)(2)(D) requires that waste treatment management agency(s)
    have adequate authority to accept and utilize grants or other
    funds  from any source for waste treatment management purposes.

    6.  S208(c)(2)(F) requires that the waste treatment management
    agency{s) have adequate authority to incur short and long term
    indebtedness.

    7.  §204(b)(l)(B) provides that the Administrator shall not
    approve any grant for any treatment works unless the applicant
    has made provision for industrial cost recovery  (recovery from
    industrial users of the portion of the Federal share of treat-
    ment works construction cost attributable to  industrial waste
    treatment).

    8.  Section 12 of the Act provides for an Environmental Financing
    Authority under  the Secretary of the Treasury.   This Authority  is
    established to assure that inability to  borrow necessary  funds  on
    reasonable terms does not prevent state  or  local public bodies
    from carrying out waste treatment works  construction projects
    eligible for assistance under the Act.   The Authority  is  authorized
    to  purchase the  financial obligations of these public  bodies  to
    finance the non-Federal share of such construction.

 B.  Operational Costs and Assessment of  Revenue

    1.  S204(b)(l)(C) provides that the  Administrator  shall  not
    approve any grant for any treatment  works unless the applicant
                               10-2

-------
        has financial capability to insure operation and maintenance
        of the treatment works.

        2.  S208(c)(2)(E) provides that the waste treatment management
        agency(s) must have adequate authority to raise revenues, includ-
        ing the assessment of waste treatment charges, to implement all
        elements of the plan.

        3.  S208(c)(2)(6) provides that the waste treatment management
        agency(s) must have adequate authority to assure, in implementing
        waste treatment management plan, that each participating
        community pays its proportionate share of the treatment costs.

        4.  S204(b)(l)(A) provides that the Administrator shall not approve
        any grants for any treatment works unless the applicant has adopted
        a system of user charges assuring that each recipient of waste
        treatment services will pay its proportionate share of the cost of
        operation and maintenance  (including replacement) of any waste
        treatment services provided by the applicant.

    C.  Indirect (Overhead) Costs  To Be Financed

        1.  Continuing planning is an indirect cost to  be financed by  the
        management agency.  S208(b)(3) requires that the water quality
        management plan  shall  be certified annually by  the governor of
        the state or his designee  as being consistent with the applic-
        able  basin plan.

        2.  S208(b)(2)(F)-(K)  provide that the management plan shall
        Include  processes to  identify and/or control nonpoint  sources
        of pollution.  Nonpoint source planning 1s an especially
        Important part of continuing planning.

        3.  5201(e)  provides  that  the Administrator shall encourage waste
        treatment management  which results in  integrating facilities  for
        sewage treatment and  recycling.   It  further provides that  such
        integrated facilities shall  be designed and operated to  produce
        revenues 1n  excess  of capital and  operation and maintenance costs
        and that such revenues shall be used by the designated regional
        management agency to  aid  1n financing  other environmental  improve-
        ment  programs.

10.3 Development  of  Financial  Plans

     A.  Capital  Construction Costs

        Capital  costs will  be Incurred  primarily  in the construction
     of waste  treatment  systems.   However,  in some cases, fixed capital
                                   10-3

-------
investment may be necessary in order to finance a regulatory program
involving acquisition of land or compensation of landowners.

    1.   Waste Treatment Program

        Due to the number and variety of methods for financing  waste
    treatment under State and local  laws, each plan should  include
    the broad range of financial arrangements available rather  than
    follow any rigid formula.  Some  requirements of the Act should
    present few if any difficulties  with regard to financial  arrange-
    ments for treatment of wastes; others are more likely to cause
    problems.   Financial  arrangements which should be relatively easy
    to  provide are as follows:

        a.   Capital funds may be raised or generated from the general
        fund,  particularly if the applicant is a government unit of
        general  jurisdiction.

        b.   Capital funds may be generated from grants or funds from
        any other sources.   In some  instances, matching funds may be
        required.

        c.   The capacity  and ability to contract indicates  a limited
        ability to generate short-term indebtedness.

        d.   The capacity  to incur short-term indebtedness may be demon-
        strated by the ability to issue bond anticipation notes, grant
        anticipation notes, or to borrow from state agencies.   Such
        short  term indebtedness must, of course, comply with constitu-
        tional  limitations  on borrowing and with any state  or local
        statutory requirements.

        e.   The capacity  to incur long-term debt may be demonstrated
        by  the capacity to issue general  obligation bonds,  revenue
        bonds,  or the capacity to borrow from state agencies.   Exercise
        of  this  capacity  to borrow is of course limited 1n  many instances
        by  constitutional  or statutory provisions.   There must  also be
        compliance with state and local  statutory requirements  for  the
        issuance of bonds or the incurring of such long-term indebtedness.

        Areas  in which problems may  be encountered in complying with the
    Act include the following:

        a.   The industrial  cost recovery requirements of the Act are
        specifically covered in 40 CFR 35 Subpart E,  of the grant regu-
        lations.   Industrial  cost recovery charges may be allocated on
        a systemwide basis  provided  that the treatment works project
        for which the grant is made  is substantially interconnected,
        with a goal to be completely interconnected physically  to all
        other  portions of the system.


                               10-4

-------
        Where revenue bonds are used to finance the local  share
    of construction costs,  funds designated for bond repayment
    should be accounted for separately from those received in
    compliance with industrial  cost recovery requirements.  This
    should avoid any problem in establishing priorities for repay-
    ment to revenue bond holders entitled to receive the industrial
    cost recovery share of total revenues.   In instances where
    industrial users must make long-term commitments for repayment,
    provision mfght be made for transfer of this commitment, in
    order to facilitate industrial  growth and change within the
    area.  Since it is implied that a long-term commitment to repay
    is in exchange for provision of services to treat the user's
    industrial wastes, such rights  to services should be trans-
    ferable.  Both the commitment and the right to services should
    be transferable, subject, however, to approval by the waste
    treatment management agency.

    b.  In the event of consolidation of two or more areas or
    agencies, each of which had incurred indebtedness and other
    contractual obligations in supplying waste treatment services,
    a legally acceptable method must be set forth for the consoli-
    dated agency to assume payment  of the debts and obligations.
    Personnel contracts, retirement benefits, long-term supply
    contracts, etc., should be paid particular attention.

    c.  In the event of treatment system consolidation, problems  may
    arise over the new waste treatment management agency reimbursing
    the participating agencies for the value of their existing facili-
    ties and assets.  A fair and uniform method of determining the
    values of these assets and a legally acceptable method of handling
    the transfer should be set forth.

2.  Regulatory Program

    Capital outlays may be necessary in carrying out a regulatory
program over existing and future waste discharge; such outlays
might arise from land acquisition or compensation of landowners
for reduction in the value of their land due to development restric-
tions.  These expenditures may be financed through some of the
financial arrangements discussed above—general funds, grants, or
bonds.  Capital expenditure for land acquisition could be considered
as part of multi-objective programs such as programs for parks and
recreation.  Alternative means for defraying potential capital
expenditures incurred by regulatory programs would include land
dedication requirements and incentives 1n subdivision regulations,
cluster zoning, planned unit development ordinances, and other self-
financing schemes for encouraging land development that is compatible
with environmental objectives.
                           10-5

-------
B.  Operational  Costs and Revenue Assessments

    1.  Waste Treatment Program

        The Act  provides two mechanisms for financing the operating
    costs of waste treatment facilities:

        a.  User charges.  40 CFR 35 Subpart E,  and related guidelines
        provide  the basis for establishing user  charges.   As set forth
        in these regulations and guidelines, the Act requires that each
        recipient of waste treatment services pay its proportionate
        share of costs of operation and maintenance.  Charges based  on
        property values only will not suffice to satisfy  this requirement,
        except in cases where such charges have  been used historically,
        change-over would be costly and disruptive, and the goal  of  pro-
        portionality among user classes can be achieved by such systems.
        Untform  rates on volume among classes of users will  suffice  if
        the classification reflects the differences in cost of treatment
        among classes of users.

        b.  Participating communities'  proportionate shares.   In deter-
        rain ing~e!icnl>aTHcTpl^^                            share of
        treatment costs, the differentials among communities should  be
        explained and justified.  In the event that all participating
        communities are charged on the same basis,  justification should
        be given.  The provisions and effects of Interlocal  agreements
        and contracts to supply waste treatment  services  should be
        reviewed and set forth.   The methods of  charging  users within
        each of  the participating communities should be defined.   The
        user charge requirement cannot be avoided by Interlocal  agree-
        ments or contracts to supply waste treatment services.   User
        charge requirements must be reflected in determining the par-
        ticipating communities'  proportionate shares of treatment costs.

            For  pollution abatement projects not financed through the
        construction grants program of the FWPCAA (for example,  non-
        point source abatement projects), the principle of effluent  fees
        or user  charges should also be followed  for financing operating
        costs.

    2.  Regulatory Program

        Locally  established regulatory programs  1n  which  capital  Invest-
    ments are Incurred may also be financed through user  charges.  For
    example, if  land 1s acquired for protection  of  critical  or flood
    prone areas, recreational  facilities on these lands could provide
    a  source of  revenue to defray capital and operating expenses  of  such
    projects.
                              10-6

-------
C.  Indirect (Overhead) Costs

    1.  General Management Program

        The overall management of State WQM Plan implementation,  includ-
    ing continuing planning, program administration,  supervision,  and
    coordination, will  necessitate specific sources of funding.   The
    following are examples of some of the activities  of a management
    program for which financing would be needed:

        a.   Program supervision and coordination:

            - water quality monitoring and surveillance;
            - development of revised work plans and State/EPA Agreement;
            - performance evaluation for each planning area;
            - determination of the need to revise  elements of the plan  and
              delegation of revision to regional,  State,  or Federal
              agencies;
            - coordination with other planning programs;
            - public participation in plan implementation.

        b.   Continuous  planning:

            - plan revision and updating;
            - annual certification of plan.

        c.   Fiscal management:

            - budget development;
            - development of financial  arrangements to implement  plans;
            - financial consulting with affected management agency(s)
              during plan Implementation.

        The possible sources of financing for the  general  management
    program might include general  revenue, grants,  bonds,  and special
    taxes and assessments.   Since  water quality management provides
    specific services such as sewage treatment, nonpolnt  source
    pollution abatement (Including protection of property from flood
    and erosion hazards), access to recreation opportunities, water
    supply  protection,  fish and wildlife conservation and many, other
    benefits, the administrative costs  for carrying out the State
    WQMP should be assessed to those benefiting from  the  services
    provided by plan implementation.   Examples of  financing mechanisms
    directed to users of these services would Include:  water and
    sewer charges, flood Insurance premiums,  portions of  general  taxes,
    recreational  user fees, and hunting and  fishing licenses.
                              10-7

-------
10.4 Budget Preparation and Supporting Documentation

     A.   The plan must include a projection of costs of carrying out  the
     plan.    This projection  should be over a 20-year period.   The
     projection could distinguish between waste treatment,  regulatory,
     and general management activities of the agency(s) designated to
     implement  the plan.   The  projection could also  break the costs of
     carrying out these activities into capital,  operating,  and  indirect
     costs  as appropriate.  For each activity involved in plan implementation,
     the budget should indicate the specific form(s) of financing to  be
     employed.

     B.   For activities and elements of the plan  to  be carried out in the
     first  five years of plan  implementation, a more detailed 5-year  projec-
     tion including capital  Improvement budgeting and cash  flow  should be
     provided.   It should include start-up costs, carrying  charges during
     the first  years of operation and similar nonrecurring  costs associated
     with plan  implementation.

     C.   The method for obtaining budget approval  for the 5-year capital
     improvement budget should  be described,  and  should indicate the
     schedule for obtaining such approval.

     D.   Where  an activity or  element of the  plan is to be  financed by
     increased  taxes, charges,  unused bonding capacity, or  other increased
     assessment through existing sources of financing,  the  budget should
     indicate the present and  projected charges.

     E.   The legal  authority of the agency(s)  to  undertake  the financing
     necessary  for plan implementation should be  described  in an opinion
     letter  from the legal  counsel  for the agency(s).   This  opinion letter
     could also be prepared  by  counsel  experts  specialized  in the field of
     bond financing and State and local  taxation.
                                  10-8

-------
                               CHAPTER 11

                     COST ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS
11.1 Introduction
     The State Water Quality Management Plans are to include an estimate
of the cost of carrying out the plan.  The costs to be assessed should
include capital, operating, administrative, and maintenance costs.   These
costs can usually, be measured in monetary terms.  Other costs, however,  such
as social, environmental and economic costs, may be more difficult  to quantify,
and may be described and evaluated in a more subjective way.  Guidance on
such evaluation is provided in Chapter 13.

     In determining an estimate of the cost of carrying out the plan, cost
estimates should be made for the following categories:

     - municipal facilities;
     - industrial facilities;
     - nonpoint source control;
     - urban and industrial stormwater systems;
     - residual waste control;
     - regulatory program;
     - program management.

     These cost assessments should be based on the best available data.  '
For example, cost estimates for municipal facilities should be based on
engineering plans, specifications, and detailed cost estimates when available.
Cost estimates for other abatement measures should also be based on engineering
designs and specifications to the extent that such details are available in
the descriptions of proposed abatement measures.  Program management costs for
carrying out these plan elements should be distinguished by plan element or as
a separate category of administrative costs.  Where the proposed abatement
measures are only described in general terms, a general estimate of their
cost should be undertaken (see Chapter 11.4).  In addition, emphasis should
be placed on the cost estimates for plan elements to be implemented in the
first five years of the planning period.  Due to a number of factors, includ-
ing changes in economic forecasts and population projections, cost  estimates
beyond five years will be less accurate.  Greater attention, therefore,
should be given to refining the accuracy of the estimates for the initial
five years.

11.2 Basic Concepts in Estimating Costs

     A. Economic Cost

        In considering the cost of Implementing a plan, it is necessary  to
     distinguish between outlays and economic cost.  In many Instances cash
                                 11-1

-------
outlays adequately represent costs, but sometimes a resource is
used, with no cash outlay.  The cost in such a case is the value
of the resource in its best alternative use -- its "opportunity
cost."  For example, acquiring public land for a treatment plant
may involve no cash outlay, but may have an opportunity cost in
terms of foregone recreation or commercial use.  If opportunity
costs are not considered, plan selection will  be biased towards  those
options which do not require outlays, despite their other costs.
Moreover, the concept of opportunity cost accounts for the cost  to
the community and Nation as a whole, not merely the cost to one
part or another.

B. Price Levels

   Where costs are estimated for future periods, they should be
stated in terms of base period dollars.  Future costs should not
reflect any expected overall increase in wages and prices, unless
there is reason to expect significant changes  in relative prices
during the planning period.  For example, due to the present energy
shortage, long term prospects are for higher energy costs.  While
it is difficult to predict how much costs will rise, alternative
plans should be tested for the effect of higher energy costs.

C. Interest Rates
   Discounting is a way to account for the opportunity cost of funds
invested in a project, in the sense that the funds could also have
been used productively in the private sector of the economy or in
some other public project.  The applicable discount rate determines
the optimal choice between capital expenditures now versus higher
operating costs in the future, the optimal amount of reserve capacity
to build, and so on.

   In discounting, the costs of a plan are stated in terms of their
present values.  That is, future costs are discounted at an applicable
rate of interest back to some intial starting date, and added to the
initial capital costs.  Alternatively, the present values may be
converted into equivalent annualized values.  Standard procedures
are described in engineering, economics, and business finance texts.

   The interest rate to be used in evaluating water-related public
projects is prescribed by the Water Resources Council, a Federal
inter-departmental group, in its "Principles and Standards for Plan-
ning Water and Related Land Resources", as amended by P.L. 93-251 (1974)
The rate specified by the Council is based oh the interest rate on
Federal Securities with maturities of 15 years or more.  The rate to
be used for each fiscal year is determined by the Council on July 1.
For fiscal year 1976, the rate is 6 1/8%.
                               11-2

-------
11.3 Specific Cost Questions

     A.  Sunk Costs and Salvage  Values

        Sunk costs and salvage  values  refer to capital assets 1n exist-
     ence at the beginning  or end  of a program.

        Sunk Costs.   For simplicity, Investments and cost commitments
     made prior to or concurrent with  the  planning study are regarded
     as  sunk costs and are  not  Included 1n the cost estimate.  Such
     Investments and  costs  commitments Include, for example:  (1) invest-
     ments 1n existing wastewater  treatment facilities and associated
     lands to be Incorporated Into a plan; (2) outstanding bond Indebted-
     ness.  However,  if Inherited  assets were to be disposed of — for
     Instance, a small  treatment plant scrapped and the land sold — their
     sale value would be treated as a  credit to that plan.

        Salvage Value.   At  the  end of  the  planning period, land for
     treatment works  (including that used  as part of the treatment process
     or  for ultimate  disposal or residues), should be assumed to have a
     salvage value equal  to Its market value at the time of the analysis,
     less any costs required to restore the lands to pre-project conditions.
     Salvage value of land  reclaimed by land treatment of sludge disposal
     should be estimated as the value  of the reclaimed land.  R1ghts-of-
     way and easements  should be assigned  a salvage value not greater
     than the market  value  at the  time of  the analysis.

        Permanent structures should be assumed to have a salvage value
     at  the end of the  planning period if  those structures can be expected
     to  continue fulfilling their  planned  use.  Salvage value should be
     based on the remaining functional  life of the structure using a
     straight line depreciation over the assumed functional life of the
     structure.   The  same approach applies to process and auxiliary equip-
     ment that will have usable value  at the end of the planning period.

     B.  Capital  and Operating Costs

        Elements of total cost  include capital construction cost, annual
     operation and maintenance  costs,  and equipment replacement costs.

        As set out 1n EPA cost-effectiveness guidelines (40 CFR 35),
     capital  costs for  facilities  include:  cost of land, relocation and
     right-of-way and easement  acquisition; design engineering, field
     exploration,  and engineering  services during construction; contractors'
     costs,  Including overhead  and profit; administrative and legal  services,
     Including cost of  bond sales; and startup costs such as operator train-
     Ing.   Contingency  allowances  consistent with the level of complexity
     and detail  of the  cost estimate are also Included.
                                 11-3

-------
    The  capital costs of a plan would Include those incurred by
 both  public agencies and private parties.  Treatment facilities
 built by  industrial companies for direct discharges or for pre-
 treatment would be included in private costs.

    Where  waste and flow reduction measures are carried out by a
 large number of industrial and household dischargers, it is diffi-
 cult  to estimate the private costs.  Unless the costs have a bearing
 on  the  choice of a cost-effective plan, such estimates are unnecessary.

    Annual operating and maintenance costs for each alternate plan
 must  be established.  These costs should be adequate to ensure effect-
 ive and dependable operation and should include all costs for operating
 and maintaining the facilities under study including power, labor,
 parts,  materials, overhead, chemicals and repair or replacement of
 equipment and structures.

    Cost-effectiveness analysis requires establishing a service life
 for each component and salvage values for components having service
 lives longer than the planning period.   The following service lives
 are to  be used, unless other periods can be justified:

                  Land                Permanent
                  Structures          30-50 years
                  Process Equipment   15-30 years
                  Auxiliary Equipment 10-15 years

 C.  Administrative Costs

    Water quality planning and management are likely to include a
 number  of ongoing costs for activities  not always associated with
 sewage  facilities management.  These activities Include monitoring
of  streams, monitoring the waste characteristics of major industrial
dischargers, periodic checks of infiltration and inflow, records of
 storm and runoff characteristics, collecting and analyzing data on
residential water use, continuing planning, coordination with other
planning, public participation, and other program management responsi-
bilities.  These functions are as important to the effectiveness of
a plan  as the physical  units 1n place.   The costs should be included
 1n  financial projections.   Recovery of  costs by direct charges --
e.g., permit fees, monitoring .fees, etc.  — should be considered and
evaluated.

D. Accuracy of Cost Estimates

   The accuracy of cost estimates for all  point and nonpolnt elements
of the plans should be sufficient to assure the selection of the most
cost-effective solution.
                              11-4

-------
        The cost estimates should be sufficiently refined to provide a
     basis for the 5-year financial budget discussed in Chapter 10.
     Such estimates might be based upon preliminary engineering layouts
     and designs, taking account of facilities 1n place.  As discussed
     1n Chapter 10, financial budgets should cover the first five years;
     therefore, the level of detail for cost estimates should be greater
     for that period.

     E. Present Values

        Using the Interest rate discussed in 11.2.C., the costs for
     construction and operations, by year, should be discounted to the
     proposed plan Initiation date, to obtain the present value (or,
     what 1s much the same thing, the annual1zed value) of the plan.
     An example Is given 1n EPA Guidance for Facilities Planning, May, 1975.

11.4 Generalized Cost Estimation

     As explained 1n Chapter 3.3.C, in some cases there may be good reason
to develop particular plan elements at a more general level of detail  than
would be needed 1f that element were to be Immediately implemented.  In
such cases, a generalized cost estimate for abating particular forms of
pollution would be sufficient.  The following guidance discusses methods
for undertaking generalized cost estimates.

     For some cost categories, such as for municipal  facilities, there are
recognized methods of cost estimation.  For other categories, such as  non-
point source control, estimating procedures are not as well developed.  All
of the categories listed in the Introduction to this  chapter are discussed
below.   More definitive guidance can be provided for  those categories
where more recognized cost estimation procedures exist.

     A. Municipal  Facilities Needs

        Where facilities or areawide planning 1s 1n progress, the required
     cost effective analyses can be used in cost estimation.   For specific
     facilities,  the best sources are proposed contract costs from completed
     plans and specifications.  At a less  advanced stage in facilities
     planning, cost estimates based on firm or preliminary engineering
     estimates, and costs of recently constructed facilities  of a similar
     nature should be used when available.

        In the absence of completed facilities or areawide plans and
     firm or preliminary engineering estimates, a cost estimation procedure
     must be used.   The generalized estimate of costs resulting from the
     State WQM Plan does not constitute a  final  decision governing facil-
     ities planning efforts.   Rather,  they  represent  the best estimate
     for the future project to be used in  the absence of better estimates.


                                  11-5

-------
   The treatment of wastewaters from various collection systems
at a single treatment facility can take advantage of the economies
of a large scale operation.  Generally, justification of region-
alization requires a detailed analysis.  The time for such an
analysis probably will not be available in the context of a pre-
liminary cost estimate.  If the need for several facilities in a
limited area strongly suggests a centralized treatment plant, then
this possibility should be reflected in the cost estimates.  This
option may not be evident at the local level; therefore, decisions
may have to be made at the basin level.

B. Industrial Facilities Needs

   A generalized cost estimate for treating industrial wastes
discharged to a municipal system should be included in the estimate
of municipal needs.  In those cases where industrial wastes are
treated and discharged directly to receiving waters, an estimate of
the cost should be included in the plan.  Similarly, the plan should
identify pretreatment costs borne by industry.

   In many instances, it will be difficult to estimate Industrial
costs due to uncertainty as to the type of industry that might locate
in the planning area.  The cost estimate should be based on the best
estimate of industrial growth and the types of Industries likely to
locate in the area.  Estimates of the volume and nature of the wastes
should take into consideration estimates of future processing and
control methods.  Information on the range and average treatment costs
for particular industries In available in the Economic Analysis series
developed by EPA for Proposed Effluent Guidelines for various indus-
trial  categories.

C. Nonpoint Source and Residual Waste Control Needs

   Cost estimates of nonpoint source and residual waste control needs
should include estimates of cost for both structural and nonstructural
control measures.  Costs associated with structural measures include
land acquisition and construction of facilities.  Nonstructural costs
include staffing, administration of programs, and costs of compensa-
tion of landowners (if required) affected by regulatory measures.

   The cost of existing programs in the planning area, elsewhere 1n
the State, or in other States can serve as a basis for cost estimation,
Recent studies often provide Information on abatement costs and can
also serve as bases for estimates.

   The cost estimates should be by agency and activity presented 1n
5-year Increments over the planning period.
                            11-6

-------
 D.  Urban and Industrial  Stormwater Systems

    The cost estimates  for urban  and industrial  stormwater  systems
 should be disaggregated  to show:   (1)  cost  of  required  improvements
 to  existing systems; and (2)  cost  of systems needed  for areas not
 served, over at  least  the 20-year  planning  period  (in 5-year incre-
 ments).  Included  in the cost assessment  for urban and  industrial
 stormwater systems  should be  a generalized  estimate  of  the effect
 on  capital  construction  costs brought  about by  the use  of non-
 structural  controls as well as capital and  annual operating costs
 of  such control  programs.   EPA is  in the  process of  developing a
 cost  estimation  procedure for stormwater  systems.  The  procedure
 should be available for  use 1n Spring, 1976.   If estimates are made
 using other procedures,  a discussion of the chosen procedure and
 reasons for using  it should be included with the cost estimate.

 E.  Regulatory Program and  Monitoring

    Costs  associated with  a regulatory program include staffing,
 administration,  and capital costs  (e.g.,  land acquisition or land-
 owner compensation).  Many of the  regulatory program costs will be
 the same  as  those Included in the  costs for nonpoint source control
 needs.   For  example, certain  regulatory actions over silvicultural
 practices may be part of  the  plan.  Where such actions could be
 listed  as part of the nonpoint source control or as part of the
 regulatory program, the cost  estimates should be included with the
 nonpoint  source  control needs.

    As was the case with nonpoint source controls, cost estimates
 should  be based  on data from existing programs, where available.
 Data  from programs 1n other States may be used but should be ad-
justed  to reflect differences 1n economic conditions.

 F.  Program Management

    Cost estimates for program management activities for those
elements of the State WQM Plan for which generalized estimates  are
made should also be developed.  Program management activities would
Include costs of monitoring, technical  assistance, administration  of
regulatory programs, coordination with  other planning activities,  etc.
                            11-7

-------
                                 CHAPTER 12
                         TECHNIQUES FOR COORDINATION
12.1 Introduction

     Water quality management is affected by broad policies  concerning land
use, regional  development, and the many functional planning  activities carried
out in a State.  As a result, it will  be necessary to coordinate State WQM
Plan development with related policies, planning activities  and programs.  Of
particular importance are those related programs listed in 5130.34.   Included
in Chapter 2 is a discussion of the requirements for coordination.   This
chapter outlines techniques for coordination and describes how they  may be
integrated into the planning process.

12.2 Coordination Techniques

     A.  Planning Agency Designation

         In many instances, agencies which may be designated by the  governor to
     be responsible for preparing and  coordinating State WQM Plans will
     also be responsible for other related programs.  Such programs  may include
     air quality management, land use  planning, coastal zone management, water
     supply, solid waste management etc.  In making designations, governors
     should take into consideration other related activities of the  agencies
     to be designated.  Coordination between related programs can be improved
     when responsibility for the programs is lodged in the same agency.

     B.  Planning Area Designation —  Geographic Boundaries

         As discussed in Chapter 2, planning area selection  can be based on
     hydrologic boundaries or political boundaries, or a combination of these.
     Whichever approach is chosen, consideration should also be given to other
     programs  1n the area.  For example, an area may be involved 1n  A1r Quality
     Maintenance Area (AQMA) Planning.  In determining the State WQM boundaries,
     it may be possible to overlap considerably with the AQMA boundaries.  As
     discussed below, this could facilitate the development  of integrated work
     plans and use of common data bases.  While it will be very difficult to
     make boundaries coterminous, it may be possible to achieve a considerable
     overlap.   In deciding upon planning area boundaries, major planning
     activities and programs should be reviewed to determine if boundaries can
     be designed to coincide with those of other programs.

     C.  State/EPA Agreement

         The State/EPA agreement on level of detail and timing is, in effect,
     a work- program for the State WQM  Plan effort.  An agreement should be
     drawn up  for each basin or approved planning area.  The agreement will
                                      12-1

-------
set forth specific responsibilities and tasks needed to carry out the
State WQM Plan.  Some of the tasks will be identical or similar to
those carried out under other programs.  This is especially true of data
collection and projection of population, land use, and economic conditions.
State WQM Plans should utilize applicable information and analyses from
other programs and should identify this in the State/EPA Agreement.
Similarly, the planning agencies will be producing outputs that other
programs can use.  This, too, should be identified in the agreement.  In
some cases, it will be possible to carry out tasks jointly with other pro-
grams, especially data collection, projection, and analysis.  To the
extent possible, specific tasks that will be coordinated should be identified
in the agreement.  Coordination with other programs will be easier if
specific responsibilities are identified early and agreed upon.

D.  Intergovernmental Agreements

    After defining specific responsibilities and tasks, intergovernmental
agreements should be made to establish the responsibilities formally.
Such agreements may include contractual relationships, memoranda of
understanding, joint exercise of powers, and/or delegation of responsibility.
These are discussed with respect to plan implementation in Chapter 9.

E.  Data

    The data which will be needed to prepare a State WQM Plan will be
similar or identical to that needed or produced in other plans.  This
is especially true of the population, economic, land use and air and
water quality data.  The coordination between plans can be greatly
enhanced if consistent data bases and projections are used.  To ensure
such consistency, it is often helpful if a common classification system
is used so that data can be compiled using a similar format.  Planning
agencies should integrate their data requirements before gathering data,
so that information is transferable.

    The feasibility of coordinating data collection and projection
depends on the timing of the planning efforts.  If one is done much
earlier than others, more recent or comprehensive data may become
available by the time the latter planning effort is underway.  If this
is the case, there may be adequate reason for modifying data and
projections.

  * Another problem develops when the planning areas overlap but are
not identical.  In this case the projections 1n the overlapping areas
should be the same and those for the adjacent areas should not conflict.
That Is, the growth rates for the entire area should be consistent.
                                 12-2

-------
    Predictions of pollution levels will be based in part on population
projections.  These predictions will affect the selection of alternative
implementation strategies, which could in turn, necessitate modification
of the projections.  This iterative process of revising projections must
also be coordinated so that conflicts do not arise.

F.  Representation

    Periodic consultation between agencies responsible for planning will
help ensure that plans are consistent.  It is important, therefore, that
representatives of the planning agencies responsible for various pro-
grams be included in any advisory group which might be created to
ensure periodic consultation between the agencies.  The Part 130 regu-
lations require the establishment of at' least one policy advisory committee.
Representatives of programs with a major relationship to the State WQM Plan
should be members of any advisory committees which are used.  In addition,  the
staffs of the planning agencies should develop a close working relationship.
For example, each agency could designate specific individuals to serve as
liaison to help ensure that necessary coordination is carried out in a timely
fashion.  This would also help in identifying possible conflicts and resolving
them informally as they arise.

G.  Evaluation of Alternative Strategies

    Many of the management strategies which will be adopted as a result
of State WQM Planning will have an Impact on other programs.  The stra-
tegies resulting from other programs may affect the development of
State WQM Plans.  It is important, therefore, that the evaluation of
alternative strategies include an analysis of impacts on the activities
of related programs.  This is especially true of other environmental
programs, in particular those dealing with air quality.  Many of the
measures Incorporated in State WQM Plans to control point and nonpolnt
sources affect land use which could, in turn, affect air quality.  For
example, sewer interceptor and facilities location, restricting the
location of industrial development to areas where the receiving waters
have assimilative capacity, and restricting development in areas where
significant nonpolnt pollution would result, are decisions which could
affect air quality.  However, not all Interaction between State WQM
Plans and air quality plans need result in conflict.  Both plans, for
example, should favor better management of construction activities.
Measures such as minimal exposure periods for active construction areas,
or utilization of staged grading, seeding and sodding procedures would
reduce both runoff and fugitive dust problems.  In general, State WQM
Plans should take advantage of complementary strategies by evaluating
                                 12-3

-------
 the effectiveness  of various  alternatives  to  determine their  impact on
 other related  programs.

     The  planning agencies  should make  sure that  they inform one another
 about alternatives being considered and offer one another an  opportunity
 to review and  comment on alternatives.  Such  comments should  be consid-
 ered during  the evaluation  process so  that alternatives for one program
 could not be selected that  would conflict  with implementation of the
 plans for other programs.   This review and comment should be  undertaken
 by the planning staffs and  the advisory groups to the planning agencies.

 H.   Reporting  •

     In order to keep  the various planning  agencies posted on  current
 developments,  there  should  be some type of periodic or milepost report-
 ing.   This could take place quarterly  or at the  beginning and completion
 of some  subtask (e.g., data collection, projections, analysis of water
 and air  quality, etc.).  Informal contacts  would, of course,  be more
 frequent.  Periodic or mil epost reporting,  however, would provide formal
 documentation  of the  communication which had  taken place.

     In addition, a report should be periodically sent to the EPA
 regional office.  The report should describe  how representatives of
 related  programs are  involved in an advisory  capacity, any major meetings
 which  have been held, what information has  been provided to each program,
 how consistency in data and projections is  being achieved, and any poten-
 tial conflicts which may develop.  This should be done at a minimum  '
 of  every 3 months 1n the format of the quarterly Interim progress reports.

 I.  Resolving Conflicts

     If potential  conflicts arise during plan development, 1t is expected
 that the planning agencies responsible will attempt to resolve them
 Informally.  If this 1s not possible,  1n designated areas the conflict
 should be referred up to the State level where the agencies responsible
 for administering the respective programs would resolve it.  As a final
 resort, conflicts should be referred to the Regional  Administrator for
mediation.

    In the case that other federal  agencies were involved 1n a dispute,
 then EPA should meet with representatives of the affected agency to review
the situation and whenever possible to formulate recommendations for
resolving the dispute.
                                  12-4

-------
J.  Program Approval

    After completion, the planning agencies responsible for related
programs should review each other's plans to ensure that there are
no conflicts.  If the agencies have been involved in plan development,
no conflicts should arise when 1t comes time to review the plan.   In
its review, EPA will evaluate the consistency of the State WQM Plan
with other programs.  Comments provided by the agencies responsible
for the programs will be a major input to EPA's review.

K.  Procedures for Coordination of Planning Programs

    EPA has developed agreements and memoranda of understanding con-
cerning coordination of a number of planning programs that affect water
quality management planning.  These agreements and memoranda utilize
many of the plan coordination approaches discussed in this chapter.
However, greater detail on coordinating particular aspects of each pro-
gram with water quality planning may be found in the following:

        Interagency agreement to relate HUD 701 planning and EPA 208
        planning, March 24, 1975.

        Integrating 208 Planning and 701 Comprehensive Planning.
        Program Guidance Memorandum AM-9, May 2, 1975.

        Coordination of EPA Water Programs and Coastal Zone Management
        Programs.  Program Guidance Memorandum AM-11, September 29, 1975.

        Coordinating 208 Planning and A1r Quality Maintenance Area
        Planning.  Program Guidance Memorandum AM-14, October 30, 1975.

        Joint agreement for Interagency coordination of areawlde waste
        treatment management planning assistance to state and local
        governments between the Environmental Protection Agency and
        the Department of the Army, November 22, 1974.
                                12-5

-------
                             CHAPTER 13

        ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT EVALUATION
13.1 Purpose

     This chapter provides guidance for integrating environmental, social,
and economic impact evaluation into the planning process.   It is intended
to meet, in part, the requirements of Sec. 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and regulations issued pursuant to that
Act.  It is also intended to meet the requirements of Sec.  208(b)(2)(E)
which requires "the identification of the economic, social, and environmental
impact of carrying out the plan	"

     The evaluation must be viewed as an integral part of the planning
process.  As such, it will be performed throughout the process rather
than after the selection of the plan, with citizens and local units of
government afforded the opportunity to participate in impact evaluation
from the beginning of the planning process.   Affected citizens and units
of government will thus be better able to analyze the various alternatives,
to identify specific plan impacts, and to provide meaningful suggestions
and recommendations.


13.2 Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Evaluation Process

     A.   Inventory Existing Conditions

         The purpose of inventorying existing conditions is twofold:
     (1) to aid in goal and problem identification; and (2) to serve as
     a basis for the analysis and comparison of alternatives.  At a
     minimum, the inventory should encompass the planning area and other
     areas that would be affected by the plan.  For example, land disposal
     sites for effluent or sludge, other wastewater reuse sites, and the
     down-stream river corridor that would be affected by effective water
     quality management should be included.   The inventory will undoubtedly
     require additions as new problem areas  are identified in the planning
     process.

         Most of the data needed for the inventory will be readily avail-
     able in existing documents and may have been gathered for use elsewhere
     in the planning process.  This would be true, for example, for most
     of the population, land use, and hydrological data.  Additionally,
     items four through fourteen in the inventory (p.3-2) are impact
     categories which may be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14)
     to determine differences among the plan alternatives.
                                   13-1

-------
    Only that data which is relevant to the analysis of alternatives
or determination of impacts should be included.   Thus, the inventory
may include but not necessarily be limited to the following:

    1.  Climate and precipitation;

    2.  Topography;

    3.  Geology;

    4.  Hydrology (surface and groundwater):

        a.  water quality
        b.  water quantity
        c.  water quality and quantity problems
        d.  water uses
        e.  water quality management
        f.  flood hazards;

    5.  Biology:

        a.  rare and endangered species
        b.  fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats including nursery
            and spawning areas
        c.  fish, shellfish and wildlife community
        d.  benthic community structure

    6.  Air quality;

    7.  Land uses:

        a.  existing land uses
        b.  land use planning and controls
        c.  amount, type, and Intensity of growth (The growth data
            should be of recent origin.  There is no necessity to
            examine growth trends further back than 1960).
        d.  soil types, permeability, and erodablllty
        e.  significant environmentally sensitive areas;

    8.   Wastewater management resources:

        a.  energy (power)
        b.  chemicals
        c.  land commitment;

    9.  Population levels:

        a.  current
        b.  projected (5, 10, 15, and 20 years);
                              13-2

-------
     10.   Economic activity  (gross assessment):
          a.   Income per capita
          b.   agriculture
          c.   mining
          d.   manufacturing
          e.   service;
     11.   Employment trends  including regional availability of
          skilled manpower for treatment plant operation and
          monitoring;
     12.   Other local, state, and federal projects having major
          interaction with proposed water quality actions;
     13.   Public health;
     14.   Aesthetics:
          a.   recreational accessibility and activities
          b.   unique archeological, historical, scientific, and
              cultural areas
          c.   noise pollution.
     The Inventory should also Include Identification of adopted
goals and pertinent constraints.  Goals might typically include:
     1.    Preservation of high quality surface water;
     2.    Preservation of coastal or other wetlands;
     3.    Preservation or enhancement of fish, shellfish and wildlife;
    4.    Enhancement of municipal services.
     Examples of constraints Include:
     1.   Air quality regulations and implementation plans;
    2.   Local climate, topography, soils, etc.;
    3.   Restrictions on flood plain use or other land uses.
B.  Evaluate the Existing Situation
    Based upon the Inventory, a brief analysis of the existing situation
should be conducted to prioritize pollution problems and sensitive
Impact areas.  This prioritlzatlon which will be a primary concern during
the remainder of the evaluation will require participation of the public
and local government agencies.
                              13-3

-------
     C.  Develop Baseline Projection

         The inventory and evaluation of the existing situation will  serve
     as inputs into the development of a baseline projection.   Construction
     of a baseline projection of relevant environmental, social, and
     economic factors (see Table 14.1) will enable evaluation of each
     alternative.  The baseline projections should be quantitative when data
     are readily available.  In other cases, it should be qualitative.   The
     baseline projection can be established by extrapolating present  indi-
     cator trends over the planning period.  In making this projection,
     it should be assumed that no additional water quality actions will be
     taken other than those that have already been approved.

     D.  Screen Options and Subplans

         Both point and nonpoint control options as well as continuous
     point source, intermittent point source, and nonpoint source subplans
     should be screened according to the factors set forth in Chapters  7
     and 8.

     E.  Evaluate Alternatives

         After the alternatives have been developed, each of them should
     be evaluated by comparing its impact to the baseline projection.
     Special consideration should be given to those sensitive Impact  areas
     identified in the evaluation of the existing situation.

         A complete environmental assessment of each alternative is not
     necessary, although the impact of both the structural and nonstructural
     aspects of the plan should be considered in every case.  Table 14.1
     contains a list of those environmental, social and economic factors
     believed to be generally most important.  However, discretion should
     be employed when using this table.  When there is no difference  among
     alternatives, a statement to that effect is sufficient.  Similarly, a
     statement will suffice when an alternative will have no perceptible
     impact on a given factor.

         Special attention should be given to long-term impacts, irreversi-
     ble impacts, and indirect impacts such as induced development.  Resource
     and energy use associated with each alternative should also be high-
     lighted.  The results should be displayed in a format for use in public
     meetings and other forms of public participation.

13.3 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan

     The results of the environmental, social, and economic impact evaluation
will be used in the plan selection process (Chapter 14).  Once a plan has
been selected, a complete description of the impact that the selected plan


                                   13-4

-------
will have on the area's environment should be completed.   The vast majority
of the data required to do this should be readily available from the eval-
uations already performed.  This more detailed evaluation should describe
the impact of the proposed structural and nonstructural  actions.  Whenever
possible, the impact of each action on each affected environmental, social,
or economic category (see Table 14.1) should be described and displayed.
However, if more than one action affects a category, the cumulative impact
may be described.  Impacts may be categorized as:

     1.  Primary (direct) or secondary (induced);

     2.  Beneficial or adverse;

     3.  Short or long term;

     4.  Avoidable or unavoidable;

     5.  Reversible or irreversible.

     Included under irreversible impacts should be an evaluation of any
irreversible commitments of resources including energy.   (See 86.304 (c-f)
of 40 CFR Part 6 for an explanation of these terms and examples.)

     While emphasis should be given to the cumulative impacts of all elements
of the plan, more localized impacts of specific plan elements, such as
treatment plant locations, Interceptor sewers, and Industrial site locations,
should also be assessed and highlighted when judged significant.  Greater
emphasis should be given to the localized Impacts of individual projects
anticipated to be developed during the initial five years of plan implementation.
                                   13-5

-------
                             CHAPTER 14

          COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF PLAN
14.1 Purpose

     This chapter provides guidance on the comparison of alternative plans
leading to the selection of a State water quality management plan.   The
process presented here assumes that each of the alternatives, if implemented,
would meet all regulatory requirements and comply with appropriate  goals
and objectives within specified limits of technical  reliability. Plans
are to be compared in terms of the defined criteria  of cost effectiveness
as discussed in Chapter 1, feasibility of plan implementation,  and  public
acceptability.  Emphasis will also be placed upon drawing together  the
evaluations already completed so that the alternatives can be more  easily
discussed and compared.  Finally, while public participation is necessary
throughout the planning process, it is essential  that the public be Involved
to a significant degree during this stage.


14.2 The Plan Selection Process

     A.   Assess Alternative Plans

          No rigorous analytical method exists which will readily identify
     the best plan for the area.  As discussed in previous chapters, many
     factors should be considered in comparing the alternatives. While
     some of the factors, 1n particular cost assessments, can be quantified,
     others can only be qualitatively assessed based upon professional
     judgement, and the views of the public.  Plan assessment involves the
     comparison of all key factors deemed pertinent  for reliable decision
     making.  Table 14.1 contains a list of those which are believed to be
     generally most important.  The inputs for that  table are to be devel-
     oped in the technical planning process (Chapter 3.8), the  step at
     which alternative plans are evaluated in light  of information  on
     their cost, technical reliability, environmental, social and economic
     impact, implementation feasibility and public acceptability.  The
     effects of the alternatives should be assessed  quantitatively  whenever
     possible.  In all other cases a qualitative assessment should  be made.

          Representatives from all affected groups should be involved in
     the assessment of the alternative proposals.  In most areas, affected
     groups would include conservation groups, economic interests,  local
     elected officials, planning agencies, state departments of health,
     water pollution control, and natural resources, the regional office
     of EPA and the Policy Advisory Committee.  The  plan approval and
     implementation process will be more efficient if the people respon-
     sible for carrying it out fully understand the  issues and  contribute to
     the assessment and recommendation of alternatives.


                                  14-1

-------
B.   Develop Recommended Plan

     Once the alternative plans have been assessed, the planning
agency should be in a good position to compare the alternatives and
develop a recommended plan.  A logical approach for comparing the
alternatives would be to identify initially that alternative which
will achieve water quality objectives at minimum monetary cost.  This
least cost plan can serve as a base against which the increased costs
and additional effects of other alternatives can be compared.  The
major environmental, social and economic impacts of this least cost
plan should be listed, including a discussion of the institutional
and financial issues that would be raised if the plan were recommended.
Most of the required impact information should be contained in Table
14.1.  A suggested format for displaying the least cost plan is shown
in Table 14.2.

     The next step should be the identification of the incremental
monetary cost and incremental impacts of each of the remaining alter-
native plans in relation to the base plan.  Information contained in
Table 14.1 would provide the basis for this incremental evaluation.
Description of alternatives should include the plan elements (such as
construction, zoning, operations, etc.) and measures or statements of
the changes in the impacts of those plan elements.  In addition to
the environmental, social, and economic Impact and Institutional and
financial issues, additional benefits that could be gained or unde-
sirable situations that could be avoided should be described.  The
alternatives should be described in such a way as to make comparisons
with the additional costs required as direct as possible.  The results
may be summarized in the format of Table 14.3.

     The planning agency should then conduct workshops for the elected
officials who will be reviewing and commenting on the proposed plan to
fully inform them of the consequences of implementing any of the alter-
native plans.  The agency should also take note of their
responses to the alternatives to see 1f the alternatives can be changed
to improve plan acceptability.  Since these workshops and the public
hearings to follow could very well result in requirements for sub-
stantial changes 1n the design of plan elements and for further analy-
sis of additional Impacts, the agency should schedule resource expen-
ditures to be able to respond fully to the need for additional modifi-
cations.
    •if.
     At the conclusion of the workshops, the planning agency should
recommend a single plan.  The plan elements, costs, impacts, and
implementation Issues can be summarized 1n the format shown 1n Table
14.2, accompanied by a brief report summarizing the process followed,
the alternatives considered, and the criteria used to reach a final
recommendation.  The report and charts should be suitable for use at
public hearings.
                            14-2

-------
C.   Hold Public Hearings to Present Proposed Plan

     The planning agency should conduct formal public hearings on
the proposed plan and the alternatives considered in its development.
The planning agency should then respond to the issues raised at the
hearings and modify the proposed plan if appropriate (as judged by
the agency).  The planning agency will then submit the proposed plan
to the appropriate governing bodies for review and recommendations.
                             14-3

-------
                            TABLE 14.1
               COSTS  AND EFFECTS  OF  ALTERNATIVE PLANS

                                                    Alternative Plans
Significant Effects                               P-1    P-2      P-3
1.   Water Quality Goals
     A.  'Contribution to goals and
          objectives of the Act.   •
     B.   Contributions to other water-
          related goals of the planning
          area.
2.   Technical Reliability
     A.   Frequency of plant upsets
     B.   Frequency of spills
     C.   Frequency and effects of
          combined sewer overflows
     D.   Nonpoint source control
     E.   Regional availability of
          skilled manpower for treat-
          ment plant operation and
          monitoring
3.   Monetary Costs
     A.   Capital costs including discounted
          deferred costs
          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total
     B.   O.M. & R. Costs
          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total
     C.   Net revenue (public)
     D.   Overhead and plan management
                               14-4

-------
                         TABLE 14.1  (cont)

    '.           COSTS AND EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS


Significant Effects                                 Alternative Plans

     E.   Total average annual costs              P-1     P-2     P-3

          (1)  public
          (2)  private
          (3)  total

4.   Environmental Effects

     A.   Hydrology (surface and groundwater)

           1)  water quality
               water quantity
               water quality and quantity problems
               water uses
          (5)  flood hazards

     B.   Biology

           1)  rare and endangered species
           2)  fish, shellfish and wildlife habitats; including
               nursery and spawning areas
          (3)  fish, shellfish and wildlife community
          (4)  benthic community structure

     C.   Air quality

     D.   Land

          (1)  change in land uses
          (2)  land use planning and controls
          (3)  amount, type and intensity of
               growth (relate to land  use)
          (4)  soil erosion damage
          (5)  significant environmentally
               sensitive areas

     E.   Wastewater management resources

          (1)  energy (power)
          (2)  chemicals.
          (3)  land commitment for planned
               features including  sludge disposal  sites

5.   Social and Economic Effects

     A.   Population changes (5, 10, 15, and 20 year
          projections)
                               14^5

-------
                          TABLE  14.1  (cont)

                COSTS AND  EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE  PLANS


 Significant  Effects                                  Alternative Plans

      B.    Changes  in economic  activity            P-l_     P-2      P-3
           where appropriate

           (1)   income  per capita
           (2)   agriculture
           (3)   mining
           (4)   manufacturing
           (5)   services

      C.    Dislocation  of  individuals,  businesses,
           or public services

      D.    Impact on other local,  state and
           federal  projects having major
           interaction  with proposed water
           quality  actions

      E.    Public health

      F.    Aesthetics

           (1)   recreational accessibility and
                activities
           (2)   unique  archeological, historical,
                scientific and cultural areas
           (3)   noise pollution

6.    Implementation Feasibility

     A.    Legal authority

     'B.   Financial capacity

     C.    Practicability

     D.    Coordinative capacity

     E.    Public accountability

7.   Public Acceptability
                               14-6

-------
PLAN ELEMENTS
   1.
   2.
   3.
TOTAL COST  $_
IMPACTS
                                 TABLE  14.2
                               LEAST COST PLAN
(A summary list of planning, construction, zoning,
sludge and effluent disposal, operations, moni-
toring actions, etc., indicating their geographic
sites).
                                 DESCRIPTION
Economic
   1.
   2.
  .3.
Social
   1.
   2.
   3.
Environmental
   1.
   2.
   3.
IMPLEMENTATION
   (Institutional and  financial issues.)
                                    14-7

-------
            TABLE  14.3
ALTERNATIVE LEAST COST PLAN MODIFICATIONS

Plan Elements
1.
2.
3.
Least
Cost
Alternative




Alternative
A




Impacts




Cost
Increase




Alternative
B




Impacts




Cost
Increase




                14-8

-------
                                  GLOSSARY


The Act  - Public Law 92-500.  "This Act may be cited as the 'Federal
          Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.'" (Act,
          Section 1).

Base level technology - Minimum level of treatment required by the Act.

Basin -   The term  'basin1 means the streams, rivers, tributaries, and
          lakes and the total land and surface water area contained in
          one of the major or minor basins defined by EPA, or any other
          basin unit as agreed upon by the State(s) and the Regional
          Administrator.

Best Available Technology (BAT) - "Not later than July 1, 1983, effluent
"limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other
          than publicly owned treatment works...shall require application
          of the best available technology economically achievable for
          such category or class, which will result in reasonable further
          progress toward the national goal  of eliminating the discharge
          of all pollutants as determined in accordance with regulations
          Issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(b](2) of
          this Act...." (Act, Section 301(b)(2)(A)).

Best Practicable Control Technology (BPCT) - "Not later than July 1,
          1977, effluent limitations for point sources, other than
          publicly owned treatment works...shall require the application
          of the best practicable control  technology  currently available
          as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section  304(b) of
          this Act...." (Act, Section 301(b)(l)(A)).   This 1s  also referred
          to as Best Practicable Technology  (BPT).

Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology  (BPWTT) - "Waste treatment
          management plans and practices snail provide for the application
          of the best practicable waste treatment technology before any
          discharge into receiving waters, Including  reclaiming and
          recycling of water and confined disposal of pollutants so they
          will not migrate to cause water or other environmental pollution....'
          (Act, Section 201(b)).

Capital  Intensive - Measure requiring Initial  capital  outlays  for Its
          development and relatively little  cost for  operation and
          maintenance.

Combined sewer - "A sewer Intended to serve  as a sanitary sewer and a
          storm sewer,  or as an  Industrial sewer and  a storm sewer."
          (40 CFR 35.905-2).

-------
Discharge of pollutants -  "The term 'discharge  of  a  pollutant' and the
          term 'discharge of pollutants'  each  means (A)  any addition
          of any pollutant to navigable waters from any  point  source,
          (B) any addition of any pollutant to the  waters  of the contig-
          uous zone or the ocean from any point  source other than a
          vessel or other floating craft."  (Act, Section  502(12)).

Effluent limitation - "The term 'effluent limitation1 means any
	restriction established by a State or  the Administrator
          on quantities, rates, and concentrations  of chemical,
          physical, biological, and other constituents which are
          discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the
          waters of the contiguous zone,  or the  ocean, including
          schedules of compliance."  (Act, Section  502  (11)).

Effluent limited segments - "Any segment  where it  is  known that water
          quality is meeting and will continue to meet applicable water
          quality standards or where there is  adequate demonstration
          that water quality will meet applicable water  quality standards
          after the application of the effluent  limitations reguired by
          sections 301(b)(l)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A) of the  Act."  (40 CFR
          130.2(o)(2)).

Facilities plan - The facility plan is the first step in a three  step
          process required to complete treatment works with federal
          grants from the Environmental Protection  Agency.  It is  to
          assure that treatment works built under  this  program are
          environmentally sound and cost-effective.

Infiltration  -  "The water entering a sewer system,  including sewer
          service connections, from the ground, through  such  means  as,
          but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections,
          and manhole walls.  Infiltration does not  include,  and  is
          distinguished  from, inflow."   (40 CFR 35.905-9).

Inflow  -  "The water discharged into a sewer system,  including service
          connections, from such sources as,  but not limited to,  roof
          leaders, cellar, yard and area drains, foundation drains,
          cooling water  dischargers, drains from spring and swampy
          areas, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers and
          combined sewers, catch basins, storm waters, surface runoff,
          street wash waters, or drainage.  Inflow does not include, and
          is  distinguished from, infiltration."  (40 CFR 35.905-11).

 Inplace pollution  source - Time  buildup  of pollutant load deposited
          In  a  receiving water  bed  and existing as a load upon that
          receiving water.

 Interim Facility  - A  temporary  treatment facility, either public or private*
          designed for a useful  life of  usually less than five years, and
          with  a  treatment  capacity usually less than five million gallons
          per day.

-------
Land use - The physical mode of utilization or conservation of a given
          land area at a given point in time.

Land use controls - Methods for regulating the uses to which a given
          land area may be put, including such things as zoning, sub-
          division regulation, and flood-plain regulation.

Materials balance - An illustration of the principle of conservation
          of matter; that is, an accounting may be performed of all
          transfers of mass from one point or state to other points or
          states, such that the total original mass is entirely accounted
          for.

Maximum daily load - "Each plan shall include for each water quality
          segment, or appropriate portion thereof, the total allowable
          maximum daily load of relevant pollutants during critical
          flow conditions for each specific water quality criterion
          being violated or expected to be violated." (40 CFR 131.ll(f)(!)).

Navigable waters - "The term 'navigable waters'  means the waters of the
          United States, including the territorial seas."  (Act, Section
          502(7)).

1983 goals - Pertains to goals outlined In Section 101(a) and elsewhere in
          the Act.

1977 coals - Pertains to the July 1,  1977 milestone set by the Act,
          particularly in terms of treatment technology and limitations.

Nonoolnt source - Generalized discharge of waste which cannot be located
          as to a specific source Into a water body, as outlined in
          Section 304(e) of the Act.

Permits - "The Administration may...Issue a permit for the discharge of
          any pollutant, or combination of pollutants...upon condition
          that such  discharge will  meet either all applicable requirements
          under Sections 301, 302,  306, 307,  308,  and 403 of this Act,  or
         prior to the taking of necessary Implementing actions  relating
          to all  such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator
          determines  necessary to carry out the  provisions of this  Act."
          (Act,  Section 402(a)0))«  "The Administrator shall  authorize
          a  state, which he determines  has the capability of administering
          a  permit program which will  carry out  the objective of this Act,
          to Issue permits  for discharges Into the navigable waters within
          the jurisdiction  of such  state."  (Act,  Section 402(a)(5)).   The
          permit  program 1s a part  of the National Pollutant Discharge
          Elimination System (NPDES).

-------
Planning process - Strategy for directing  resources, establishing
          priorities,  scheduling actions,  and  reporting programs toward
          achievement  of program objectives.

Point source - "The term 'point source1  means  any  discernible, confined
          and discrete conveyance,  including but not limited to any pipe,
          ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete  fissure, con-
         tainer, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or
         vessel  or other floating craft, from  which pollutants are or may
          be discharged."  (Act, Section 502(14)).

Pollutant - "The term  'pollutant' means  dredged spoil, solid waste,
          incinerator  residue,  sewage,  garbage, sewage sludge, munitions,
          chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials,
          heat,  wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt
          and Industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged
          into water."  (Act, Section 502(6)).

Pretreatment - "The Administrator shall...publish  proposed regulations
         establishing  pretreatment  standards for introduction of pollu-
          tants  Into treatment works...which are publicly  owned for those
          pollutants which are determined  not  to be susceptible to treatment
          by such treatment works or which would-interfere with the oper-
          ation  of such treatment works."   (Act, Section 307(b)(l)).   "Not
          later than July 1, 1977...in  the case of discharge into a
          publicly owned treatment  works...shall require compliance with
          any applicable pretreatment requirements...under section 307
          of this Act."  (Act, Section  301(b)(l)(A)).

Residual waste - Those solid, liquid, or sludge substances from man's
          activities 1n the urban,  agricultural, mining  and  industrial
          environment  not discharged to water  after collection and necess-
          ary treatment.

Secondary treatment -  "There shall  be required...for publicly  owned
          treatment works in existence  on  July 1,  1977,  or approved...
          prior to June 30, 1974...effluent limitations  based  upon
          secondary treatment as defined by the Administrator  pursuant
          to section 304(d)(l) of this  Act."    (Act, Section  301(b)(l)(B)).
          "The Administrator...shall publish...Information,  in terms  of
          amounts of constituents and chemical, physical,  and  biological
          characteristics of pollutants, on the degree  of effluent
          reduction attainable through the application  of secondary
          treatment."   (Act, Section 304(d)(l)).

-------
State water quality standards - The term "State Water Quality Standards"
          means those State adopted and Federally approved uses and criter-
          ia that are legally applicable to the interstate and intrastate
          waters.  The water quality standards are incorporated by refer-
          ence in Part 120 of Title 40 of Code of Federal Regulations.

Storm sewer - "A sewer intended to carry only storm waters, surface
          run-off, street wash waters, and drainage."  (40 CFR 35.905-22).

Upstream pollutant source - Source of pollutant discharged into the
          receiving waters which is located upstream from the area of
          consideration.

Waste load allocation - A waste load allocation for a segment is the
          assignment of target loads to point, and to nonpoint sources
          to achieve water quality standards in the most effective manner.

Waste treatment facilities - "Any devices and systems used in the storage,
          treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or
          industrial wastes of a liquid nature...in addition...any other
          method or system for preventing,  abating, reducing, storing,
          treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste, including
          waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems."  (Act,
          Section 212(2)).  Also termed treatment works.

tyater quality limited segments - "Any segment where it is known that water
          quality does not meet applicable  water quality standards,  and/or
          is not expected to meet applicable water quality standards even
          after the application of the effluent limitations required by
          sections 301(b)(l)(B) and 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act."  (40 CFR

-------
         ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR STATE WATER QUALITY
                    MANAGEMENT PLANNING
     This bibliography has been prepared to assist those engaged
in State WQM Planning.  The references have been arranged to
correspond to the planning process elements and outputs.  Refer-
ences cited have been selected for their applicability to State
WQM Planning and for their availability.

     Each reference is followed by a short abstract and, whenever
possible, by detailed price and ordering information.  Instructions
for using the Government Printing Office and the National Technical
Information Service are also included on the last page.

-------
                               - 2 -
 PLANNING PROCESS ELEMENTS

 PROCESS DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLAN CONTROL

 Wprkplan Handbook for  Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management
 Planning.U.S.  EPA.Wash.  D.C. '75.Available upon request
 from EPA Regional Offices.

       Provides details on the preparation of areawide planning
       workplans.   The  handbook provides examples of workplan
       elements to assist locally designated planning agencies
       in preparing 208 workplans.

 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM/INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

 A Citizen's Guide to Clean Water.   U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.  June '73.
 Available  upon request from  U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107)
 Wash,  D.C.  20460.

       95 page  booklet  provides the layman with a good introduction
       to the problem of water pollution and what can be done to solve
       it including citizen action.  Explains major EPA water pollution
       abatement  programs and emphasizes role of the citizen.

 A Ladder of Public Participation,  "Journal of the American Institute of
 Planners'1,  Vol.  35,  no.4.  Sherry R. Arnstein.  Wash. D.C. July, '69.
 Reprints of journals are available from Kraus Thomson Organization Ltd.,
 Route  100,  Millwood, N.Y. 10546, $3.75 per copy, State month and year of
 journal  desired.

       A  typology of citizen  participation is offered using examples
       from  three  federal social  programs:  urban renewal,  anti-poverty,
       and Model Cities.   The typology,  which is designed  to be provoca-
       tive, is arranged in a ladder  pattern with each rung corresponding
       to the extent of citizens's  power in determining the plan and/or
       program.

Agreement for  Implementation of  Section 304(j) of the Federal Water
 Pollution Control Act  Amendments of  1972.Federal Register Vol. 38
No. 225, Nov 25,  '73.

      Agreement between  EPA  and  Departments of Interior,
      Agriculture and  Army on setting  up 208 advisory
       committees with  representation of signatory agencies.

Analysis of New Techniques for Public  Involvement in Water Planning.
Water Resources Bulletin Vol.  11,  No.  2 page 329.April  '75.BacK
 issues available at  $4.00 per copy from Dana Rhoads,  American Water
Resources Association, St. Anthony Palls Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi
River at 3rd Ave. S.E.,  Minneapolis, Minnesota  55414.

-------
                              - 3 -

       Several techniques that have potential  for overcoming  some  of
       the limitations of standard public  involvement  techniques have
       recently been developed.  This paper describes  several of
       these new techniques and analyzes each  of them  in terms of
       their potential utility in water resources planning.

 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning.  U.S. EPA.  Wash. DC.
 NOV '74.GPO (stock no. 625-wu) or single copies available from
 U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107) Wash. D.C.  20460.

       A 13 page booklet explaining the EPA's  areawide waste treatment
       management planning program under Section 208 of the Act.   Explains
       to layman what areawide planning is, what it can do, and how it
       relates to other EPA programs.  Explains roles of Federal,  State,
       and local agencies in the planning process.  Suitable for public
       information.

 Citizen Participation Strategies, "Journal of the American Institute of
 Planners".  Edmund M. Burke.  Wash.  D.C. Sept  '68. Reprints of journals
 are available from Kraus Thomson Organization Ltd., Route 100, Millwood,
 N.Y. 10546,  $3.75 per copy.  State  month and year of journal desired.

       Suggests that many of the problems planners and others have
       had in involving the public in decision making can be resolved
       by recognizing and adopting a strategy of participation specifi-
       cally  designed to fit the role and resources of a particular
       organization. Five types of strategies are identified: Education-
       therapy,  behavioral change, staff supplement, cooptation,  and
       community power.

 First  Things First; A Strategy Against Water Pollution.  U.S. EPA.
 Wash.  D.C. Sept '74.GPO (stock  no.  551-507)  or single copies available
 from U.S. EPA Office of Public Affairs (A-107) Wash.  D.C.  20460.

       A 16 page  booklet explaining  the major elements of the strategy
       used by the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency and the States
       in their  attack  qn water  pollution,  the  problems faced and what
       is being done about them.  Suitable  for  public  information.

 Joint  Agreement  for Interagency Coordination of Areawide Waste Treatment
 Management Planning Assistance'to State and  Local Governments between
 fepA and  the  Department  of tne Army.   Federal Register  Vol.  40 No.  11,
 tan 16,  '75.

       Agreement  between  EPA and Department of  the Army which
       established  coordination between  the Corps of Engineers
       Urban  Studies Program and the 208 Program.

 Public Participation in  Water Resources Planning. University  of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.   HT.   MTIS  PB 204-245.              "

-------
                                - 4 -
      Reviews public  participation activities and procedures which have
      been utilized in  connection with governmental  planning studies,
      especially water  resources  planning studies.  Discusses identi-
      fication of public;  functions and objectives;  mechanisms for
      securing involvement;  and timing.  Also presents a model for a
      participatory planning process.

Selected Techniques for Soliciting Community Participation in
Transportation Planning.Julie Hetrick Schermer.New York, NY,  '74.
Copies of this paper  available upon request from Mr. William Reed,
Director of Publications,  Parson,  Brinckerhoff,  Quade & Douglas,  Inc.
1 Penn Plaza, 250 W.  34th  St., New York, NY 10001.

      Five techniques for  greater  community participation recently
      employed in major transportation planning  projects are reviewed
      and assessed in this paper.   They are equally  applicable to waste
      treatment  management planning and include  "citizen coinnittees",
      "randomly  selected participation groups",  "open door policy",
      "direct funding to community groups", and  "planning balance sheet",

The Bole of Citizen Advisory Groups in Water Resources Planning,
Publication No.  43.Madge Ertel,  Water Resources Research Center,
University of Massachusetts  at Amherst, July, '74.  Available At  $3.00
per copy from Water Resources Research Center, University of Mass.,
A211 Graduate Research  Center, Amherst, Mass. 01002.

      Report is  the result of case study observation of the citizen
      advisory groups operating in conjunction with  three planning
      studies.   Describes  the ways in  which these groups have dealt
      with problems and to generalize  from their experience for the
      benefit of other  citizen advisory groups and planning agencies.
      Concludes  with a  set of practical "guidelines" derived from this
      research,  for the use  of planning agencies seeking to maximize
      the effectiveness of citizen advisory groups.

Water Resources  Decision Making on the Basis of  the  Public Interest.
Report No. IWR Contract Report 75-1.U.S.  Army  Engineer Institute
for Water Resources, Fort  Belvoir,  Va,  Feb '75.   NTIS,  AD/A 010 402
$4.25.

      The concept of water resources decison making  in  the public
      interest is both  fundamental  and  elusive.   OMs  report discusses
      alternative perspectives that have been suggested for defining
      the public interest  and provides  an overview of  the decision
      making in  involved in  a typical water resources planning study.
      It then examines  various approaches to determining the public
      interest in preauthorization  planning and  decision making.

-------
                                - 5  -

ESTABLISHMENT OF PLAN OBJECTIVES

Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management.   U.S.  EPA.
lagemer
: from
Wash. D.C. Aug  '75.Available  upon  request from EPA Regional
Offices.

      Intended  to assist  208 planning  agencies  in carrying
      out their areawide  waste  treatment planning responsibilities
      within designated area.   It applies  also  to other  agencies—
      local, State and Federal—that may be involved in  the  planning
      process for those areas or in  plan review procedures.

Policies and Procedures for State Continuing Planning Process.  (40 CFR
Part 130).Federal Register, Vol. 40  No.  137 July 16,  '75.

     These regulations describe the  necessary elements of  a  State's
     continuing planning  process, and  therefore provide  policies and
     procedures for review, revision and approval of a State's
     continuing planning  process.  Also provided is a mechanism for
     satisfaction of the  Statewide responsibilities of other sections
     of the Act.  They apply to phase  I plans (those submitted
     before July 1, '76.)

Preparation of State Water_Quality Management Plans_(Proposed Rules).
(40 CFR Part 131).Federal Register,  Vol.  40,  No.  137,  July 16, '75.

     These amended regulations  describe the requirements for
     preparation of water quality management plans  and the
     procedures governing plan  adoption, submission,  revision,
     and EPA approval.  These regulations  apply to  phase II  plans
     (those submitted after July 1,  '76).

Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans.   (40CFR Part  131)
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No.  107,  June 3,  '74.  (under  revision)

     These regulations describe requirements for  preparation of basin
     plans and the procedures governing basin plan  adoption, .submission,
     revision, and EPA approval.  They apply to phase I  plans (those
     submitted before July 1, '76).

DATA COLLECTION (economic, demographic, land use, environmental
impact, waste loads, monitoring program, water  quality data)


PROJECTIONS OF WASTE LOADS (projection of economic, demographic,
land use factors to develop waste load projections,  interim  outputs,
related to facilities planning.)

-------
                                - 6 -

 Design of Cost-Effective Water Quality Surveillance Systems, Report
 No. EPA 600/5-74-004.U.S. EPA.Wash. B.C. Jan.  '74.GFO, $4.05.

      Presents the development and successful demonstration of
      quantitative methods for the design of river basin water
      quality surveillance systems for pollution abatement.  The
      methods provide a systematic approach to the consideration of
      expected stream conditions, system characteristics, equipment
      performance, and cost in the selection of a preferred system
      design from among a number of candidates.  Methods are compu-
      terized and programs are detailed in the report.

 Design with Nature.   Ian McHarg. Garden City:  Natural History Press,
 1969.   Published for the American Museum of Natural History.  The
 Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, 501 Franklin Ave., Garden
 City,  NY 11530.

     Demonstrates by using concrete examples how man's new knowledge
     of ecology can  be applied to actual environments, both natural
     ones such  as seashores,  lakes, rivers, and swamps and those that
     man has created such as  large cities.   Emphasis is placed on the
     concept of  design with nature and showing now man can impose
     design but  "use to the fullest,  the potentialities and with them,
     necessarily,  the restrictive conditions - that nature offers."

 Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans.   U.S. EPA,
 Wash.  D.C.  '74.Available upon request from EPA Regional  Offices.

     Describe the  preparation of basin plans pursuant to the
     State continuing planning process (Section 303(e) of  the
     Federal Water Pollution  Control Act Amendments of 1972
     and  40 CFR  Part 130-131).   They are intended for use  as
     the  basin planning methodology by State and local personnel
     in preparing  water quality management  plans.

 1972 OBERS Projections? Economic Activity in the U.S.; Based on
 Series E  Population, Vol.  I-VII.(U.S.  Water  Resources Council).
Wash. D.C.  '74.<5PD,  stock no.: Vol.  I,  5245-0013,  $3.05;
Vol. II,  5245-00014,  $2.50; Vol.  Ill,  5245-00015,  $3.10; Vol.  IV,
 5245-00016, $1.90; Vol. V,  5245-00017,  $2.75;  Vol.  VI, 5245-00018,
$2.50; Vol. VII,  5245-00019,  $2.75.

     Hie projections  in this  report incorporate  the Census
     Bureau's 1972 "Series E" national population projection.
     Vol.  I: Concepts, Methodology and summary data. Vol. II:
     BEA Economic Areas, Vol.Ill: Water Resources Regions and
     Subareas, Vol.  IV: States, Vol. V: Standard Metropolitan
     Statistical Areas, Vol. VI: Non-SMSA Portions  of  BEA Economic
     Areas, Vol. VII: Non-SMSA Portions of Water Resources Subareas.

-------
                                - 7 -

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2.   U.S.  EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash.  D.C.,  March '75.  Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Sets  forth  policy  and  procedures concerning the use of interim
     outputs to  guide facilities planning after award of a 208
     grant.

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-8.   U.S.  EPA, Water Planning Division
Wash.  D.C. May  '75.Available  upon request from EPA Regional Office.

     Transmits policy and decision rules to allow Regional Offices
     to evaluate designated agency grant applications for acceptable
     water quality analysis and modeling, waste load estimation, and
     data collection efforts in proposed workplans for designated
     208 areas.

Promoting Environmental Quality Through  Urban Planning and Controls.
Report No. 600/5-73-015.U.S.  EPA.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
Series, Feb  '74.   NTIS  PB-227-090/8.  $11.50.

     Focuses on  the changing awareness and current practices in
     promoting environmental quality through urban planning and
     controls in local  and  metropolitan  planning agencies.  Includes
     a review of planning practices in the 1960's related to environ-
     mental  quality; and a  detailed examination of numerous planning
     approaches  and controls considered  to be promising for future
     environmental quality  enhancement.

Stream Quality Preservation Through Planned Urban Development.  U.S.  EPA.
Report No. EPA R5-73-019.Socioeconomic Environmental Studies  Series,
Wash.  D.C. May '73. GPO, $2.60.  NTIS PB 222-177.

     The effects  of a land  use plan to restrict urban development
     in areas critical  to the water  resouce system are identified
     through  empirical  studies  for  example:  relationships are
     established  between amount, density,  type and location of  urban
     development, on the one hand,  and stream water quality and stream
     channel  enlargement on the  other.

The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control.   U.S.  Council on Environmental
Quality.Fred Bosselman and David Callies.  Wash. D.C.   GPO, stock no.
4111-0006, $2.75

     A report on  the innovative  land use laws of several States.   The
     report examines in detail several different Statewide regulatory
     systems, several systems where  "critical areas" only are regulated
     and several  systems focusing on key types of land  development.   The
     examinations are based  primarily on a  review of the key statutes
     regulations and decisions and on interviews with administering
     officials and other groups.  Key issues that run through all  systems
     are synthesized.

-------
                              -  8  -

Urban Land Use Planning.  F. Stuart Chapin,  Jr.  Urbana,  Illinois:
University of Illinois Press,  '65.

     Focuses primarily on theory and methods with special  attention
     given to the techniques required  in making  analysis of land
     use, in measuring trends, and in  estimating present and
     future requirements for the uses  of land.   Aspects  concerned
     with the legal basis of planning,  its legislative controls
     and its administrative organization are specifically  excluded
     from detailed treatment.

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (Model selection, calibration, verification,
prediction of water quality impact of  waste  loads, waste load
allocations—including interim outputs related to facilities
planning)

Guidelines for Preparation of Water Quality  Management Plans. U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '74.Available upon  request from EPA Regional  Offices.

     Abstract:  See previous reference

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-2.   U.S. EPA,  Water Planning Division
Wash. D.C.March *75.Available  upon request from  EPA  Regional Offices,

     Abstract: See previous reference

Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water Quality,  (with addendum).
U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. March '71.Available  from: Planning Assistance
and Policy Branch, (WH-554) U.S. EPA,  Wash.  D.C.  20460.

     A general simplified methodology  for the application  of
     mathematical models to the  analysis of  water quality.   The
     parameters modeled include  certain dissolved oxygen in streams
     and estuaries.  The modeling  efforts have been  incorporated into
     various tables, nomographs  and figures,  and along with some
     technical data, may be used to estimate treatment levels to
     meet specific water quality standards.

Information regarding the applicability and  availability of other
specific water quality models is available from: Mr. William Somers,
Technical Assistance Section, Planning Assistance Branch (WH-554)
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 20460.

The following 208 planning process  elements  are  the  basis  for developing
the 208 outputs which follow on  the next pages.  References on these
elements are broken down according  to  the 208 outputs which follow

-------
                               - 9 -

 DEVELOPMENT OF ABATEMENT ALTERNATIVES

 DEVELOPMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES
 (legal,  financial,  institutional analysis, proposed management
 agency(s)  and  institutional  arrangement to carry out abatement
 programs,  including needed regulatory programs)

 IMPACT EVALUATION AND PLAN SELECTION
 (environmental assessment, plan evaluation, plan selection
 through  public involvement)

 PLAN REVIEW/APPROVAL
 (local review  and recommendation, State review/approval,
 EPA review/approval)

 208 OUTPUTS

 Municipal  and  Industrial Treatment Works Program (first six)

 INTERIM  OUTPUTS FOR FACILITY PLANNING

 Interim  Output Evaluation Handbook for Section 208 Areawide Waste
 Treatment  Management Planning.U.S.  EPA.  Wash.  D.c. '75.  Available
 upon request from EPA Regional  Offices.

     Deals with interim  outputs expected within  the first  9 months
     of  the two-year 208 areawide waste treatment management  planning
     program namely:  service area delineation, population  and land use
     projections, flow and waste load projections, and  waste  load
     allocation revisions.

 Program  Guidance  Memorandum  AM-2.   U.S.  EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash.  D.C.March '75.Available upon request from U.S. EPA  Regional
Offices.

     Abstract:  See previous reference.

FURTHER  FACILITY  PLANNING

Guidance for Facilities  Planning.  U.S. EPA.  Wash.  D.C.  May,  '75.
Available  upon request tirom  EPA Regional Offices.

     Suggests  procedures for engineers,  planners,  municipalities
     and local, State and Federal  agencies to follow in seeking
     grants  for the construction of publicly owned treatment works.
     The procedures are  intended to assure that  treatment works to
     be constructed will be  cost-effective, environmentally sound
     and publicly accepted.

-------
                              - 10 -

Program Guidance Memorandum AM-1.  U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division.
Wash. D.C.March '75.Available upon request from EPA Regional
Offices.

     Transmits policy statement issued March 11, 1975 by  the
     Assistant for Water and Hazardous Materials on the subject
     of the relationship between 201 facilities planning  and
     208 areawide planning,  (attached)

SEWER AND HOOK-UP ORDINANCE

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management.  Vol.  I-IV.
U.S. EPA. School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University,
Wash. D.C.  '73.  NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     This report deals with the issues of the adequate authority  of
     designated waste treatment management  agencies to perform as
     required by Section 208(c)(2) and related sections of  the Act.
     "Adequate authority" includes both the legal authority and the
     management capability of the agencies. The report is  based  on
     a legal analysis of the laws of the fifty states and of federal
     legislation, and on a survey of existing waste treatment manage-
     ment agencies.  The study consists of  a main report, an executive
     summary, and two separately bound appendices: Appendix A- Suggested
     Representative or Model legislation, Appendix B - States Reports.

WPCF Manual of Practice No. 3  Regulation of Sewer Use.   Water Pollution
Control Federation.Wash. D.C.  '68.Available from Water  Pollution
Control Federation, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue,  Wash. D.C. 20016, price $2.00

     The manual presents the case for legally constituted guidelines
     to regulate the use of public sewer systems.  It does  so through
     presentation of a model sewer use ordinance and a detailed discussion
     of its component parts.

PRETREATMENT ORDINANCES

Federal Guidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced into Publicly
Owned Treatment worEsTU.S. EPA.wash. D.C. Oct  '73.Available upon
request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Guidelines established to assist municipalities, States, and
     Federal agencies in developing requirements for the  pretreatment
     of wastewaters which are discharged to publicly owned  treatment
     works.  Also explain relationship between pretreatment and effluent
     limitations for a publicly owned treatment works.

Improved Procedures for Municipal Regulation of  Industrial  Discharges
to  Public Sewers (forth coming].  No report no.  assigned.Draft  avail-
able from U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division (WH-554), Wash. D.C.  20460.

-------
                             - 11 -

      Reviews the current status of local government control of
      industrial wastes discharged into publicly owned treatment
      works and finds them ineffective as a means of controlling
      large scale industrial activities.  The report suggests an
      effective and economical regulatory scheme for complying with
      the federal pretreatment and effluent standards and the require-
      ments imposed on federally-financed treatment works.  The
      approach involves a contractual agreement between an industry
      and a public entity for treatment of the industry's wastewater.

 Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management , Vol. I-IV.
 School  of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Wash. D.C.,
 '73.  OTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

      Abstract:  See previous abstract

 DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIAL TREATMENT LEVELS AND TIE INTO
 MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS
Design  Criteria for Mechanical,  Elect£ic, Fluid Systems and Component
Reliability!   U.S.  EPA.  Wash.  D.C.   NTIS FB-227-558/4. -

     Amplifies and  supplements the  Federal Guidelines for Design,
     Operation, and Maintenance  of  Wastewater Treatment Facilities
     with  regard to establishing minimum standards of reliability
     for mechanical, electric  and fluid systems and components.
     Stresses  component  backup to attain system reliability.

Effluent Guidelines and  Development Documents.   U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.

     The Effluent Guidelines Division of the Office of Water and
     Hazardous Materials,  EPA, has  published effluent limitation
     guidelines for existing industrial sources and standards of
     performance and pretreatment standards for new industrial
     sources.   Effluent  limitation  guidelines and standards have
     been  published for  each of  a number of different industrial
     categories. In addition, for  each industrial category,
     development documents have  been published  which contain
     supportive data and rationales for the development of the
     applicable effluent limitation guideline and performance
     standard.   While all  of the effluent limitations guidelines
     and development documents are  too numerous to be referenced
     here,  information pertaining to specific industrial categories
     can be obtained from, Ms. Frances Desselle,  Effluent Guidelines
     Division  (WH-552) U.S. EPA,  Washington,  D.C.  20460.

Federal Guidelines,  Operation and Maintenance of  Wastewater Treatment
facilities; — U.S. EPA.   Wash. D.C.  Aug '74.   Available upon request
trom EPA Regional Offices.

-------
                             - 12 -

     These guidelines are intended to assist  in assuring  that all
     aspects related to wastewater treatment  plant operation and
     maintenance are appropriately considered by  those responsible
     for complying with grant requirements, specific effluent permit
     criteria, and related water quality standards.  They provide
     information on the key elements that should  be included in any
     plan of operation for a wastewater treatment facility.  Source
     documents offering more detailed information are referenced
     throughout.

Federal Guidelines, Pretreatment of Pollutants Introduced Into Publicly
Owned Treatment WorTtsIU.S. EPA. Wash. D.C.  Oct  '73.Available upon
request from EPA Regional Offices.

     Abstract: See previous reference.

Guidance for Sewer System Evaluation.  U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.  '74.
Available upon request from EPA Regional Offices. -

     Intended to provide engineers, municipalities, regulatory
     agencies with guidance on sewer system evaluation to determine
     presence of excessive infiltration/inflow.   Includes discussion
     of physical surveys rainfall simulation  preparatory  cleaning
     internal inspection and survey reports.

Waste Load Allocations in River Basin Plans.

     River basin plans required under Section 303 of the  Act
     contain waste load allocations for segments  of streams
     designated water quality limited.  These allocations
     would, of course, be useful in defining  industrial treatment
     levels.

ORDINANCES ON LOCATION OP PRIVATE AND INDUSTRIAL  DISCHARGES

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol. I-IV.
U.S. EPA.School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University?
Wash. D.C. '73.  NTIS PB-239-808.  $25.00

     Abstract:  See previous reference

RESIDUAL WASTE MANAGEMENT

Development of Residuals Management Strategies (forthcoming).  U.S. EPA.
Report No. not assigned.Wash. D.C.Draft copy  available from U.S. EPA
Water Planning Division (WH-554), Wash. D.C.  20460.

     Study of the development of strategies for managing  residuals.
     Contains step by step guidelines for identifying alternate
     residuals management strategies and then evaluating  and selecting
     a strategy.  Presents a residuals generation and discharge model

-------
                                - 13 -

     which identifies different methods  for complying with recent
     federal legislation  that  requires a specified level of environ-
     mental quality and identifies  many  points in the residuals
     generation and discharge  process at which physical methods can
     be introduced or changes  made,  to reduce or alleviate the effect
     of discharging residuals  into  the environment.

Evaluation of Land Application Systems,  Technical Bulletin, EPA Report
Ro. EPA 520/9-75-001.  U.S. EPA.  Wash.  D.C., March '75. GPO,  OTIS
(awaiting number assignment).

     Procedures are set forth  to assist  EPA personnel in evaluating
     treatment systems that employ  land  application of municipal
     wastewater.  In addition  information is provided which may be of
     value to State, local and other  Federal agencies.  Consists of an
     Evaluation Checklist, parallel background information and is
     divided into three major  parts dealing with:  (1) facilities plans,
     (2) design plans and specifications,  and (3)  operation and
     maintenance manuals.

Information Package on Residual Waste Management.   U.S.  EPA.  Wash. D.C.
oct '75.Available upon  request from U.S.  EPA,  Planning Assistance and
Policy Branch (WH-554) Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Contains a bibliography of helpful  publications.  Provides
     description and status of ongoing research  and/or demonstration
     projects dealing with residual waste management.

Land Application of Sewage Effluents  and Sludges;  Selected Abstracts,
Report'So. EPA 66o72"-74-042.U.S. EPA.  National  Environmental Research
Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 1974.  GPO, $2.80,  NTIS  PB 235-386 $8.50

     Combines selected abstracts  from previous publications and
     updates the sources abstracted into the year  1973.   Ihe 568
     abstracts selected for inclusion are arranged in chronological
     groupings and are identified as  to  emphasis on  effluent or sludge.

                                   irison of Alternatives.   Council on
                                      Wash.  D.C., Feb '  74.   GPO.

     Provides a single document which can be utilized on a comparative
     basis, to develop preliminary selections of appropriate wastewater
     treatment schemes for a municipality.   The  format of the  text
     allows the reader to compare various treatment  strategies on an
     energy, environmental or  economic basis and to  develop cost figures
     which may better reflect  a particular  local situation.
Environmental Quality and u.s.

-------
                               -  14  -

Process Design Manual for Sludge  Treatment  and  Disposal,  Report No.
EPA 625/41-74-006.U.S. EPA.  Wash.  D.C.,  Oct'74.  Available  upon
request from U.S. EPA Office of Technology  Transfer,  CM#2 Rm 1014,
RD 677. Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Presents a contemporary review  of  sludge processing  technology
     and the specific procedures  to  be  considered, modified, and applied
     to meet unique conditions.   Emphasizes operational considerations
     and interrrelationships of the  various sludge treatment processes
     to be considered before selecting  the  optimum design.   Also
     presents case histories of existing wastewater treatment  plants
     to illustrate the varous unit processes and  results.

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse By Land  Applicability, Vol.  I,  Report No.
                                                  gp^
EPA 660/2-73-006a.Vol.  II  660/2-73-006b.U.S.  EPA.  Wash.  D.C.  Aug '73
GPO Vol. 1 - $1.10, Vol.  II  -  $2.40

     Report of a nationwide  study of  current knowledge and techniques
     of land application  of  municipal treatment plant  effluents and
     industrial wastewaters.   Information and data were gathered on
     the many factors  involved in system design and operation for the
     three major land  application approaches: irrigation,  overland flow,
     and infiltration-percolation.  In addition,  evaluations were made
     of environmental  effects, public health considerations, and costs—
     areas in which limited  data  are  available.

URBAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT  PROGRAM

Comparative Analysis of Urban  Stormwater Models.   U.S.  EPA.  Nov '74.
Available upon request from  U.S.  EPA,  Planning Assistance  and Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C.  20460.

     Eighteen mathematical models for  the nonsteady simulation of
     runoff in urban storm and combined sewerage  systems were
     reviewed in a study  sponsored by EPA.   Most  of the models
     evaluated include the nonsteady  simulation of the rainfall-
     runoff process and flow routing  in sewers.  A few also  include
     the simulation of wastewater quality,  options for  dimensioning
     sewerage system components,  and  features for realtime control
     of overflows during  rainstorms.

Contributors of Urban  Roadway  Usage to Water Pollution, Report No.
EPA 600/2-75-004.U.S. EPA.   Wash. D.C.  March '75.NTIS  no. not
assigned yet.

     Study of contributions  of motor  vehicle usage to  urban  roadway
     loading factors.  Specific roadway study sites within the non-
     industrial Washington,  D.C.  area  were  selected so as  to provide
     minimal interference from non-traffic-related land use  activities
     and thus isolate, as much as possible,  the traffic-related
     depositions.

-------
                             - 15 -

Practice  in Detention of  Stormwater Runoff.  Herbert G.  Poertner,
American  Public Works Association, '74.OTIS PB-234-554.

     On-site detention  of runoff was investigated as an alternative
     to other methods of  urban stormwater runoff management.  It was
     found that this method,  which involves  collecting  excess runoff
     before it enters the main drainage  system,  can often  be applied
     an an effective and  economical means of reducing peak runoff slow
     rates to lessen or eliminate problems of flooding, pollution, soil
     erosion, and siltation.

Urban Stormwater Management Research and Planning Projects for FY 1975

and FY 1976, Information  Package.   U.S.  EPA.   Wash.  D.C. March '75.
Available upon request  from U.S.  EPA, Planning Assistance  Branch (WH-554),
Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Information contained in this report is concerned  with urban
     stormwater management.   Well over one hundred projects were
     reviewed and those selected to be included  within  this report
     were chosen because  of their contribution to the planning process
     for  urban stormwater management. Five  areas within the planning
     process are identified and projects are categorized appropriately.
     Also includes a list of  bibliographies  where information on projects
     done prior to FY 75  is available.

Urban Stormwater Management and Technology;  An Assessment, Report No.
EPA 670/2-74-040.U.S. EPA.National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, '74.  GPO,  NTIS,  PB 240-687/AS  $11.50.

     The results of a comprehensive investigation and assessment of
     promising, completed, and ongoing urban stormwater projects,
     representatives of the state-of-the-art in  abatement  theory and
     technology.  Presented in a textbook format, provides a compendium
     of project information on management and technology alternatives
     within a project framework of problem identification, evaluation
     procedures and program assessment and selection.

Water Quality Management  Planning for Urban  Runoff.  Report No.
EPA-440/5-75-004. U.S.  EPA.   Wash.  D.C.  Dec  '74.   NTIS  PB  241-689/AS
$7.50

     Provides technical assistance to state  and  local water quality
     management planners  to enable them  to quantify  within reasonable
     limits the urban non-point water pollution  problem in a local
     planning area without extensive  data generation, and  to make a
     preliminary evalution of cost-effective  abatement  and control
     practices.  Prescribes procedures for several levels  of input,
     each requiring more  self-generated  data,  with increasingly
     sophisticated results.

-------
                              - 16 -

Water Resources Protection Measures in Land Development! A Handbook
U.S. iDept. of Interior, Office of Water Resources.  Wash.  D.C.  '74.
NTIS PB 236-049.

     Description of measures that can become an  integrated part of
     urban development to lessen problems  that would otherwise  adversely
     affect water resources.  Measures are presented in groups  and
     related directly to the problems of runoff, erosion,  sedimentation,
     flooding, runoff pollution and increased sewage effluent discharge.
     Each group is preceded by a flow chart that relates individual
     measures to each other and can aid in the selection of alternative
     techniques that follow a logical sequence.

NONPOINT SOURCES MANAGEMENT GENERAL

Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and  Extent of
Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-014.U.S. EPA
Wash. D.C. '73.  GPO, $2.45

     This report issued under Section 304(e) provides  general
     information on the identification and assessment  of nonpoint
     sources.  Particular attention is paid to agriculture, silvi-
     culture, mining, and construction.

Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program, Report No.
EPA 440/9-75-001.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. April T75.  GPO Stock  No.
582-421/246.

     This report resumes the results of 40 State sediment  control
     institutes sponsored by EPA, through  a grant to the National
     Association of Conservation Districts.  The status of laws
     in the states is covered and a model  State  law for sediment
     control is included.

AGRICULTURAL SOURCE MANAGEMENT

Evaluation of Salinity Created by Irrigation Return Flows, Report No.
EPA-430/9-74-006.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C. '74.GPO, $1.65.

     Report provides general descriptions  of the problems,
     major problem areas, and remedial and control measures.

Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution  from Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources, Report No. EPA 430/9-73-015.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.
"HT.  GPO, $1.10.

     Issued under Section 304(e), report provides general  descrip-
     tions of various measures that may be used  to control agricultural
     runoff.  It is strongly directed to erosion and sediment control,
     but nutrients, pesticides, and animal wastes are  covered.

-------
                                - 17 -

 Research Status  on Effects of Land Application of Animal Wastes,
 Report No.  EPA-660/2-75-010.U.S. EPA.   Wash. D.C.  OTIS awaiting
 number assignment.

      Report primarily resumes research results.  However, in one
      chapter,  it outlines  a procedure for estimation of the effects
      of  animal wastes on crop utilization nutrients.

 Study of Current and  Proposed Practices  in Animal Waste Management,
 Report No.  EPA 430/9-74-003.U.S. EPA.Wash. D.C.Jan. '74.
 GPO,  $4.70.

      Report briefly discusses various methods of disposal and/or
      utilization of animal wastes.  The  report contains 362 pages
      of  annotated bibliography.

 Numerous Soil  Conservation Service,  Agricultural Research Service,
 and other EPA  ORD Reports.

 SILVTCULTURAL  SOURCE  MANAGEMENT

 Logging  Roads  and Protection  of Water Quality, Report No. EPA
 910/9-75-007.U.S. EPA.Seattle, Washington, March '75.  NTIS
 no. not  assigned yet.

      Report provides  discussions and data for design, construction,
      use and maintenance of logging  roads to prevent pollution.
      An  overview of logging roads problems is provided.

 Processes,  Procedures and  Methods to Control Pollution from
 Silvicultural  Activities.Report No.  EPA 430/9-73-010.DTS. EPA.
 Wash. D.C.  '73.GPO,  ?1.25.

      This report issued under  Section 304(e), provides general
      information on the nature of silviculture pollution control
      problems  and on  control methods.  General predictive techniques
      and criteria  for  management programs are included.

 MINING SOURCE  MANAGEMENT

 Processes,  Procedures and Methods to Control Pollution from
 Mining Activities,  Report No.  EPA 430/9-73-011.   U.S.  EPA.
Wash. D.C.  '73.GPO,  $3.40.

      Report  provides  general  information  on  controls for surface
      and  underground mines, and  treatment methods.   Some cost
      information is included.

Various  publications  of EPA (ORD), Bureau of Mines,  SCS, Appalachian
 Regional Commission,  and others.

-------
                                -  18  -

CONSTRUCTION SOURCE MANAGEMENT

Comparative Costs of Erosion and  Sediment Control, Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA  430/973-016.U.S.  EPA. Wash.  D.C.  '73.
GPO $2.20

     Cost  information on erosion  and sediment  control measures
     has been assembled in  this report, evaluated, and  documented
     for more then 25 methods  in  current and widespread use  in  the
     United States.

Control of Erosion and Sediment Deposition  from Construction of
Highways and Land Development.U.S.  EPA. Wash. D.C. Sept '71.
GPO, $.60

     Discusses the causes and  effects of excess sediment  runoff,
     measures for control,  costs, and administration.

Methods of Quickly Vegetating  Soils  of Low  Productivity,  Construction
Activities, Report No. EPA  440/9-75-008.U.S.  EPA.Wash. D.C.,  July '75.
GPO Stock No. 210-810/11 1-3.

     Document prepared for  use by planners, engineers,  and resource
     managers who need to provide for the rapid establishment of  a
     protective vegetative  cover  on  bare soils on construction  sites.

Processes, Procedures, and  Methods to Control  Pollution Resulting from
All Construction Activity,  Report No. EPA 430/9-73-007.U.S. EPA.
Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $2.30.

     Issued according to requirements of Section 304(e) of P.L.
    . 92-500.  Report provides  information of a general  nature
     regarding measures for controlling or  preventing erosion and
     sediment runoff, stormwater, and pollutants other  than  sediments.

HYDROGRAPHIC MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT

The Control of Pollution from  Hydrographic Modifications, Report  No.
EPA 430/9-73-017.  U.S. EPA.Wash.  D.C.'73.  GPO, $1.95.

     This report issued under  Section 304(e) provides information
     and guidance for use in identification and evaluation of non-
     point sources of pollutants, and processes, procedures  and
     control methods when pollution  results from changes  in  the
     movement flow or circulation of  any navigable waters or ground
     waters.

-------
                              - 19 -

 GROUNDWATER POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

 Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface Excavations , Report No. EPA
 430/9-73-012.  U.S.  EPA.  Wash. D.C. '73. GPO, $2.25.

      Report issued under Section 304 (e), provides information on
      identification and evaluation, and on control methods.  Injection
      wells , lagoons, septic systems, land fills, pipe leakage, etc.
      are generally covered.  Administrators Decisions Statement No. 5
      is included.

 Identification and Control of Pollution from Salt Water Intrusion.
 U.S.  EPA.   Wash. D.C.  '73.  NTIS PB 227-229/2.

      Report issued under Section 304 (e), provides general information
      on identification and assessment;  and on control methods.  Coastal
      and inland waters are covered.

 Subsurface Pollution Problems in the United States, Report No. TS-00-72-02.
 U.S.  EPA.   Wash. D.C.  May '72.  GPO StocK No. 514-148/60.

      Report provides very general information on types of
      subsurface problems experienced in the United States.
Subsurface Water  Pollution, A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Part I -
"Subsurface Waste Inlect ion";  Part II - "Saline Water Intrus
                                                             y. Pa
                                                             ion";
Part III -  "Percolation from Subsurface Sources".  U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.C.
March  * 72.  NTIS,  Part I:  PB-211-340;  Part II:  PB-211-341; Part III:
PB-211-342.

     A selective  bibliography produced from the computerized data
     base of  the  OWRR Water  Resources Scientific Information Center.
     Represents published research in water resources as abstracted
     and indexed  in  the semi-monthly  journal,  Selected Water Resource
     Abstracts.   Represents  a search  of a 33,980 - item data base,
     covering SWRA from October  1968  through December 1971.

MANAGEMENT  FISCAL AND REGULATORY
1971»Suqqested State Legislation  (1971);  1972 Suggested State Legislation
/1972J: 1973 gugqesfcedlbaie Legislation  (1973)?  1974 Suggested State	
Legislation /l9?4h 11)75 Suggested State  Legislation (1975).   Council of
^^^^^^^^^^^^—^•^^Mwn»«iMM»"»""«™'««r*TrtP*^TJl^^^"Tl^^^?^TTB"**S^TK^^^^^F???'"T"""^T	. _  * * r»j\
Legislation  (»?4h la'/b ft
State Governments.Available from Council of State Governments,  1150
17th Street, N.W. Wash. D.C. 20036.  $5.00 for each  volume covering one
year.

     Includes suggested legislation  that would be relevant
     for implementing 208 plans.

-------
                               - 20 -

Institional Design for Water Quality Management; A Case Study of the
Wisconsin River Basin, Vol. 1-JX. Irving K. Fox.  Resources Center,
University of Wisconsin, Madison Wisconsin, 1971.  NTIS PB-199-268.

     A case study of the institutional arrangements for
     implementing areawide water quality management plans.

Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Management, Vol.
j=jyt—O.g. "EwC—School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana
University, Wash. D.C.,  '73. NTIS PB-239-808.   $25.00

     Abstract:  See previous reference

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental  Impact, Circular  No. 645.
Luna fe. Leopold, et. al.  U.S. Geological Survey.Wash. D.C.  '71.
Available upon request from U.S. Geological Survey, National Center,
Reston, Virginia 22092.

     Suggests an approach to evaluate  the probable  impact  of a
     proposed action on  the environment by providing a system
     for the analysis and numerical weighting  of probable  impacts.
     System uses the "generalized matrix" approach.

A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies, Report No.
EPA 600/5-74-002.U.S.  EPA.  Wash. D.C. April '74. GPO $.70,
NTIS PB-236-609/AS.

     Seventeen  methodologies applicable  to preparation of
     environmental impact statements are  reviewed  to  identify
     their  strengths, weaknesses,  and  potential range  of use.
     Specific criteria are suggested for  evaluating the adequacy
     of an  impact assessment methodology.

An Approach to Evaluated Environmental Social  and  Economic Factors
 in Water  Resources Planning.Water Resources Bulletin Vol. 8 No. 4
 page 724.Aug.  '72.Back issues available at $4.00 per copy from
 Dana Rhoads,  American Water Resources Association, St. Anthony Falls,
 Hydraulic Lab, Mississippi River at 3rd Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, Minn.
 55414.

      Briefly discusses present methods of project evaluation and
      then describes an approach adapted from highway planning
      literature  for evaluating both monetary and non monetary
      variables and presenting them to decision makers at all levels.
      Social and  environmental consequences are analyzed using a
      graphical description method.  Includes a case example.

-------
                               - 21 -

Bibliography for Environmental Assessment and Impact Evaluation
of Areawide Water Quality Managements  U.S. EPA.  wash. D.c. Nov  '75.
Available upon request from U.S. EPA, Planning Assistance and Policy
Branch (WH-554), Wash. D.C. 20460.

     A bibliography of references dealing with environmental
     assessment and impact evaluation.  Emphasis is placed on
     those relating to environmental assessment and impact
     evaluation of areawide water quality management.
         «

Manual for Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements for Wastewater
Treatment Works, Facilities Plans, and 208'Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plans.  U.S. EPA.  Wash. D.c. '74. Available upon request
from U.S. EPA, Office of Federal Activities (A-104), Wash. D.C. 20460.

     Provides the framework for preparing environmental impact
     statements (EIS's) when required on wastewater treatment
     works, facilities plans, or 208 areawide waste management
     plans.  Provides certain minimum standards of completeness
     and consistency in those EIS's prepared by EPA in the above
     categories.

Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands; A Practical Guide for
Local Administrators, Meporfc No. EPA-6QQ/5-75-dQ5.  U.5. EPA.
Wash. D.C.  March '75.  OTIS, awaiting number assignment.

     Intended as handbook for use by local planning officials
     in planning for and regulating use of streams and creeks,
     wetlands, woodlands, hillsides, and groundwater and aquifer
     recharge areas.  Discusses ecology and value of sensitive
     areas, and recommends regulatory programs.  Includes appendices
     on obtaining technical assistance.

The Impact Assessment Scenario.  A Planning Tool for Meeting the
Mation^s Energy heeds.  fteport"No. M-72-56.  Martin V. Jones.
The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia. April '72. NTIS PB-211-471.

     Seeks to illustrate how the scenario technique, developed by
     systems analysts in sixties, can be adapted to help accomplish
     comprehensive, systematic planning in the energy field.  Concepts
     developed apply, however, to water quality management.
Secondary Impacts of Transporation a"g,w;f,^a^rn?:[i;ves^mgntg?,
Review and Bibliography, keport NO. BiA ^9/5-75-uuz.  u.s. EFA.
Wash. 6.C. Jan  '75.  NTIS awaiting no. assignment.

     A review of over 50 major studies and 300 relevant reports
     related to secondary environmental impacts on various forms
     of £blif iSvSSents, e.g. land based transportation and
     wastewater collection systems.

-------
                               -  22 -

Secondary Impacts of Transportation and Wastewater  Investments;
Research Results, Report No. EPA  600/5-75-013.U.S.  EPA.  Wash.  D.C,
July '75.NTIS, awaiting number  assignment.

     The second report of a 2 part research study.  This  report
     presents the results of original research on the extent  to
     which secondary development  can be attributed  to highways
     and wastewater treatment and collection, and what conditions
     under which causal relations appear  to exist.

-------
                               - 23 -

              INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORDERING PUBLICATIONS

 National  Technical Information Service (NTIS)

 National  Technical Information Service
 5285 Port Royal Road
 Springfield,  Virginia 22161

      The  National Technical Information Service has available for sale,
 both paper and microfiche copies of many EPA technical reports.  Some
 reports are,  however, available only in microfiche.  Information on .
 availability  and prices is given only by mail and can be obtained by
 writing to the NTIS and giving them the following information:

      1.  Title of the report
      2.  NTIS accession number (usually in the form: PB-000-000).
      3.  EPA  Report No. (If known, usually in the form: EPA 000/0-00-000)
      4.  Number of copies required.
      5.  Paper copies or microfiche.

      NTIS will respond by mail with a price quote and availability
 statement. Publications can then be ordered by mail with payment
 enclosed.

 U.S.  Government Printing Office (GPO)

 Superintendent of Documents
 U.S.  Government Printing Office
 Washington, D.C. 20402

      The  Government Printing Office has available for sale, paper
 copies  of many EPA and other agency publications.  Information on the
 availability  and price of publications can be obtained by calling the
 Publications  Information/Order Desk at GPO in Washington, D.C.  The
 desk  can  be reached at area code 202, 783-3238.   The following infor-
 mation  will be needed.

      1.   Title of the report.
      2.   EPA  Report No. (usually in the form:  EPA OOO/o-OO-OOO).
      3.  GPO  Stock No.  (if known).

      The  Information/Order Desk can then  check the availability and
quote the  price.   If the publication is available a check for  the
amount, payable to the Superintendent of  Documents,  can be mailed
with  the order to GPO.   Publications will be mailed upon receipt of
 the payment.   If ordering in the Washington, D.C.  area publications
can be  picked  up in person at  GPO.   When  calling  for  information and
price ask  the  clerk to assign  a pick-up number.   The  publications can
then be picked up in person at GPO.

-------
     GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY
             MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
                       SUPPLEMENT NO. 1
                BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES


 1.1    Introduction

       This Supplement No. 1 to the Guidelines for State and Areawide
 Water Quality Management Program Development provides additional
 guidance to that already contained in regulations and guidelines. Policies
 and Procedures for the State Continuing Planning Process ^ (40 CFR 130)
 and Preparation of Water Quality Management Basin Plans (40 CFR 131)
 delineate requirements for the utilization of Best Management Practices
 (BMP) in water quality management programs. Procedures for implementing
 the BMP concept are detailed in the Guidelines for State and Areawide
 Water Quality Management Program Development. These regulations
 and guidelines call for States to select BMP applicable to the pollution
 problems and particular conditions in each State. Where designated 208
 areas or agencies exist within a State, the State and the 208 agencies
 must work together in establishing appropriate BMP for the designated
 area.  The purpose of this Supplement No. 1 is to illustrate for various
 nonpoint sources alternative management practices that States might
 consider in choosing the BMP.

 1.2    Definition of Best Management Practices (BMP)

       The term Best Management Practices (BMP) means a practice, or
 combination of practices,  that is determined by a State  (or designated
 areawide planning agency) after problem assessment, examination of alternative
 practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective,
 practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations)
 means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by
 nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

 1.3    Concept of BMP

       The control of pollutants in the runoff, seepage and percolation
 from nonpoint sources can be  accomplished through management of the
 sources.  BMP is intended to be an acceptable basis for State  management
 of nonpoint sources and to be of assistance for pollution abatement under
 NPDES.  BMP are the management techniques necessary to protect water
 quality.  The management techniques (BMP) are to be determined by
 State and local government.

       Point sources are defined in P. L. 92-500.   Nonpoint sources are
not defined.  By inference, nonpoint sources are those sources that
 result in diffuse runoff (seepage, infiltration and percolation) of pollutants
to the nation's waters.

-------
                               -2-
       Point sources will be managed under the National Pollutant Discharge
 Elimination System (NPDES).  Permit issuance is based on Best Practical
 Technology (BPT) and/or Best Available Technology (BAT). Permit
 issuance and regulatory followup will be carried out by the States or
 by EPA where authority for  NPDES has not been delegated to the States.

       Nonpoint sources will be managed under the authorities of Section 208.
 This Section of the FWPCA specifies that the States have the primary
 responsibility for managing and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution
 under  Federal overview and with Federal assistance and cooperation.  The
 mandatory State control program required by the Act may be based upon
 utilization of BMP provided that the State Water Quality Management program
 contains adequate measures for the identification of nonpoint source problems,
 selection of such practices to correct existing and prevent future nonpoint
 source problems, and assure implementation of approved, planned, or
 proposed practices; including required regulatory and enforcement systems.

       This guidance is primarily intended to apply to the BMP as they
 may be used in the control of nonpoint sources.  However, the BMP
 may be equally as valuable in reducing the pollutants in  point discharge
 sources.  In essence,  the BMP should be considered as a useful tool
 for reducing pollutants regardless of whether the  source is classified
 as a point or nonpoint  source for planning,  management, and
 regulatory purposes.

       Because of the variability in sources, topography, climate,, soils,
 etc., no one BMP will be applicable to all activities or situations.
 The BMP must be tailored to the needs of the particular source and
to the physical conditions that will govern its application.  It is expected
that State and local expertise, fully familiar with  both the  sources
and the physical conditions, will be utilized in the final selection of BMP.

1.4    General Criteria for Choosing BMP for Nonpoint  Sources

       The  definition of BMP states several criteria or tests which
should be applied by the  State in choosing Best Management  Practices
 (BMP):

           -  a BMP should manage "pollution generated by
             nonpoint sources"

           -  a BMP should achieve water quality "compatible
             with water quality goals"

           -  a BMP should be "most effective in  preventing
             or reducing the amount of pollution  generated'1

           -  a BMP should be "practicable"

-------
                                 -3-


       A.  A BMP should manage "pollution generated by nonpoint sources"

       Water pollution sources can be functionally categorized in accordance
with man's activities.  This type of categorization has been used in
Section 208 and 304(6), P. L. 92-500 in connection with nonpoint sources.
It is considered to be applicable to the selection of BMP to prevent or
reduce pollution from these sources.  As a minimum, the State should
consider the following activity categories in its establishment of BMP
for nonpoint sources:

                  1.  Agricultural Activities
                  2.  Silvicultural Activities
                  3.  Mining Activities
                  4.  Construction Activities
                  5.  Urban Runoff
                  6.  Hydrologic Modifications
                  7.  Sources Affecting Ground Water
                  8.  Residual Wastes Disposal

       The use of  this classification of sources should not be interpreted
as placing sources into nonpoint or point categories.  As emphasized
earlier,  BMP will be useful in preventing or reducing pollutants in both
nonpoint and point sources of water pollution.

       The interrelation of the activities outlined above should be considered
in the selection of BMP.  It may be advantageous to further categorize
the nonpoint sources based on similar control aspects.   Utilization of
sub-categorization could reduce the amount of duplication in the selection
of management practices.   Examples of such sub-categorizations are:
(1) by similar physical conditions, e.g.,  soils, slope, precipitation patterns;
(2) by similar activities, e.g.,  soil disturbance --construction, strip mining,
land development; (3) by site-specific characteristics, e.g., all activities
in a single area of like conditions; and (4) by pollutant to be controlled,
e.g., sediments,  acidity/alkalinity, oxygen demanding materials.

       B.  A BMP should achieve water quality "compatible with water
           quality goals11    ""

       Through analysis of existing water quality data and of newly acquired
data where necessary, target levels of abatement should be  chosen for each
planning area in the  State.   The BMP should be selected in terms of
meeting these targets.  The pollutants that must be controUed should be
determined.  While BMP will normally prevent or reduce several
pollutants, the  final  selection of  BMP should be related to those pollutants
that must be controUed to achieve water quality goals.

-------
                                  -4-
       C.  A BMP should be "most effective in preventing or reducing
           the amount of pollution gene rate cT

       The State should select criteria against which the effectiveness
 of the BMP can be related.  These criteria (Ibs/tons  per day/week/
 month/year, Ibs/tons per acre/square mile/basin, etc. ) should be
 related to the reduction of pollutants and achievement of water quality
 goals.  The effectiveness of the BMP in reducing pollutants should be
 fully evaluated in  terms of the selected criteria.

       The reduction or elimination of pollutants in the  runoff,  seepage,
 and percolation from nonpoint sources can materially contribute
 to the protection of the quality of the Nation's waters.   In general,
 there are two options for accomplishing the needed reductions  and/or
 eliminations, namely; (1) Collection and treatment of  the pollutants
 and,  (2) reduction and/or prevention of the formation, runoff,  seepage,
 and percolation of the pollutants.

       Collection and treatment of the runoff, seepage and percolation
 of pollutants from nonpoint sources may be necessary in some cases.
 However, the collection and treatment of pollutants from nonpoint
 sources is generally complex and expensive.   Because  of this,
 collection and treatment is considered to be a final measure to be
 utilized where other preventive measures will not reach the necessary
 water quality protection goals.

       The BMP must be technically capable of preventing or reducing
 the runoff, seepage, or percolation of pollutants.  First consideration
 should be given to those preventive techniques that have been shown
 to be effective during their past use.  New and innovative techniques
 should be fully analyzed as to their technical capability  of preventing
 or reducing pollutants prior to their consideration for incorporation
 into the BMP.

       While one practice (measure) may be adequate  in some cases,
 BMP will generally consist of a combination of practices.  The various
 alternatives should be fully evaluated.  In choosing among the alternatives,
 the BMP that most effectively achieves the desired level of water pollution
 control should be  chosen.  If more than one alternative  will achieve
 the level of effectiveness necessary to reach water quality goals, the
 least costly alternative should be  chosen.

       D. A BMP should be  "practicable"

       Implementation of the BMP should be feasible from not only the
 technical standpoint but also the economic, legal,  and institutional
 standpoints.  The  practicality of securing early implementation should
be evaluated in the selection of the BMP.

-------
                                  -5-
       The primary goal of BMP is the protection of water quality.
However, expensive preventive techniques that will result in little
water quality benefits should be avoided.  The BMP must be capable
of being implemented within the financial capability of the area,  and
of the owners or operators of the various sources.  Side benefits as
well as the installation and operational costs should be included in
the evaluation.   The final selection of the BMP should take into
consideration both the costs of the preventive techniques and the
economic benefits (water quality or otherwise) to society that will
result from their use.

       A number of the preventive techniques that may be incorporated
in the BMP are  already in widespread use within various source
categories.  These techniques should receive first consideration in the
selection of the  BMP.  Techniques that will require material operational
changes in the source management should be avoided unless  they are
necessary for water quality protection.  Insofar  as is possible, the
initial implementation of the BMP should be accomplished with the
existing legal and institutional framework of the  State.  However, if
additional legal  authority is needed,  steps should be taken at an
early date to secure the needed authority.

       Full consideration should be given to the total effect on the
environment in the  selection of the BMP for water pollution control.
BMP applied to  prevent or reduce water pollution could result in
adverse effects  on the other portions of the environment such as the
creation of air pollution or solid waste disposal problems.  Adverse
effects on other portions of the environment are  not only undesirable
but also will delay the implementation of BMP to control water pollution.

1.5    Sources of Information on Techniques

       In general, a great body of knowledge concerning the management
techniques already  exists in the manual and other publications of various
Federal,  State and  local agencies currently operating programs  related
to the nonpoint source field (e.g., the U.S.  Soil  Conservation Service
and various Soil Conservation Districts manuals  and publications; the
manuals and other publications of the U.S. Forest Service).   EPA
encourages the use of such techniques once they have been reviewed and
evaluated, and found to have a significant favorable impact on the ecological
quality of the waters of the Nation.

       Such information will be supplemented, by EPA and other Federal
agencies, as additional knowledge becomes available.

       In those areas where organized bodies of information  do not exist
(e. g.,  urban drainage), EPA is to provide potential users with as much
information as is possible  regarding state-of-the-art techniques for control.

-------
                               -6-
1.6   Source Category BMP

      Information on BMP as applied to a source category is contained in the
BMP papers that follow.

-------
                                                     DRAFT
                                                      12FEB  1976
                     BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              URBAN RUNOFF SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
     Urban runoff pollution 1s the result  of precipitation washing the
 surface of a city—the pollution associated with this runoff being
 Inevitably a consequence of human activity.  Urban runoff contributes
 significant amounts of pollution to receiving water.  These sources
 may  be either point or nonpolnt, or combinations of the two.  In
 meeting this problem, this guidance is  intended to provide Information
 regarding the management of pollution from urban runoff and to supplement
 Information regarding control of urban  runoff under NPDES requirements.

 Introduction

     Pollution from urban runoff occurs when precipitation flushes the
 urban environment and carries pollutants  to receiving waters. As surfaces
 are  flushed, the polluted water  flows overland toward the collection
 systems.  The Initial collection systems  are the land surface, roof tops,
 parking lots, and the like, which slope toward secondary collection
 systems (roadways, streets, gutters, and  drains).  It Is there that
 surface water concentrates as it flows  Into the sewerage.  .These
 systems are of two general types:   seperate or combined.  Separate
 storm sewers carry, 1n addition, untreated municipal  and Industrial
wastewater.   On the other hand,  separate  storm sewers discharge directly
 other hand,  usually have flow-splitting devices which, during high flows,
 bypass a high percentage of untreated combined sewage directly to the
 receiving waters.   The remaining smaller  fraction receives some treat-
ment before being discharged.
     Polluted runoff contains  substantial amounts of organic material,
 inorganic solids,  and collform bacteria.  Other pollutants Include
nutrients, pesticides, and heavy metals.  Clearly, these pollutants
degrade the receiving water quality.  This degradation often results  1n
decreased dissolved oxygen levels  and high turbidities.   Collform bacteria,
Indicate the presence of pathogenic bacteria which are pollutants.
Moreover, nutrients, 1n the form of nitrogen and phosphorus, contribute
to Increased eutrophlcation rates.  Although runoff contains pesticides
and heavy metals,  their Impact on  the aquatic environment 1s as  yet
largely unknown,  though recent evidence suggests that the presence of
heavy metals decreases the diversity of aquatic biota.

-------
                               -2-
     Problems related to water quality degradation resulting from
unregulated, or poorly regulated runoff are accelerated erosion of
land area and stream banks, sediment deposition in channels, increased
flooding, increasing potential for public health problems and deter-
ioration of aesthetic quality.  Indeed, the total pollutant loads of
stormwater, during storm runoff periods, can exceed by many times
that of municipal treatment plants.  This condition could very well
preclude meeting water quality standards—regardless of the degree
of treatment afforded dry weather wastewater flows.

Nature of the Problem

     If one word can describe the nature of the urban runoff problem,
that word would be variability.  For example, the quantity and
quality of storm overflows can vary with respect to storm character-
istics, antecedent conditions, time, location,'degree of urbanization
or even other factors.

     While stormwater runoff problems may be characterized by their
variable nature, the ultimate cause of this pollution may be traced
to the activities of man.  Four examples are:

     1.  Fallout from the Air- Fallout or washout from the air contri-
butes substantial amounts of particulate matter.  Winds carry dust and
dirt into and out of an area, but leave large amounts trapped within
the area.

     2.  Residue from Transportation- Automobiles, trucks, and buses
remain a major source of suspended  solids, chemical oxygen demanding
material, and heavy metals, especially lead.

     3.  Debris from Man's Carelessness- Street litter—an accumulation
of trash—is a major source of organic material.

     4.  Washoff from Construction- Runoff from urban construction sites,
whether it Is from new developments, or redevelopment, contributes sig-
nificant amounts of sediment.

     Sediment remains the most common pollutant which results from these
activities.   It exists ubiquitously 1n an urban area.  Recent evidence
Indicates that heavy metals, nutrients, and some pesticides may adsorb
or cling to sediments.

-------
                                -3-
Concept

     The object of nonpolnt source controls is to protect the beneficial
uses Intended for receiving waters.  While treatment appears an availa-
ble means to achieve this end, Its cost remains prohibitive.  A less
costly alternative is, then, to address the sources and causes of
pollution.  Best Management Practices achieve this goal through the
reduction and prevention of pollution.  Such is the principal focus of
the BMP concept.

     Management practices may be divided Into two groups: those most
useful for existing or developed areas and those more applicable to
new or developing areas.  Problems of developed areas occur where
structures and pavements are in place and where drainage is accomplished
primarily through sewering.  In the densely populated commercial, and
industrial subareas, management techniques such as Improved sanitation
practices and Improved maintenance practices are most effective.  Such
techniques reduce the amount of pollutants, that can enter the drainage
system.
     The "preventive" concept best applies to developing urban areas,
for these are areas where man's encroachment 1s minimal and drainage Is
essentially natural.  These areas offer the greatest flexibility of
approach 1n preventing pollution.  What 1s required, therefore, is to
manage the development in order to maintain a runoff regime as close to
natural as possible.  It 1s 1n these new areas where proper management
practices can prevent long term problems.

     The philosophy of flow attenuation underlies the preventive objective
of the BMP concept.  Flow attenuation, as an approach to controlling the
rate of urban runoff, is well documented.  It is concerned directly with
runoff as 1t moves over the surface of the urban area to the Initial
collection system.  Flow attenuation, 1n an hydrologlc sense, means to
Increase the time of concentration and decrease the magnitude of the peak
runoff. Less erosion results because reduced runoff velocity reduces the
erosion force.  Furthermore, with this technique large volumes of water
are not allowed to rapidly accumulate at constructions, but flow at
reduced rates over a longer period of time, thus diminishing the possi-
bility of localized flooding.  Management practices focus on the sources
of pollutants and their means of conveyance.  The Improvement to water
quality 1s a result of reduced loadings to the receiving water.
ment to water quality is a result of reduced loadings to the receiving
water.

-------
                                -4-
Management Options

     Best management practices, within the urban area, are an integrated
approach using source and collection system management.  Source manage-
ment is defined here as those measures for reducing or preventing pollution
through good "housekeeping" methods.  Examples of "housekeeping" techniques
are:

     1)  Street cleaning,
     21  Sewer flushing,
     3)  Catch basin cleaning,
     4)  Improved waste collection,
     5)  Stock pile covering.

Source management addresses the pollutants where they accumulate, before
they are washed into the receiving water.

     Collection system management, as used here, includes all alternatives
pertaining to collection systems which begin from the ground surface and
end with the sewer outfall.  Examples include devices such as:

     1)  Detention basins,
     2)  Recreation lakes,
     3)  Debris dams,
     4)  Playground or parking lot temporary storage,
     5)  Roof tops, and
     6)  Use of flow separating devices such as the swirl concentrator,
     7)  In-systems devices such as
         a.  Use of existing sewers for storage
         b.  In-line tunnels
         c.  Addition of polymers
         d.  Inflow/infiltration reduction, etc.
     8)  Groundwater Recharge

Collection" system management is concerned with reducing the amount and
rate of runoff and in addition, the number of overflows in combined sewers.

     Reuse of stormwater should be considered as a management option in
those areas of the country that are water deficient.  Runoff, from sur-
face storage, can be used for such nonpotable uses as fire fighting or
lawn irrigation.   Groundwater recharge should be considered where it is
practicable, and the quality of the recharging water would not pollute
the receiving aquifer.

-------
                                -5-
     An integrated approach would include source management to reduce
pollutant loads and collection system management to reduce infiltration,
overflows, and rate of runoff.  BMP's should thus stress both source and
collection system management.  The management goal is to reduce or prevent
pollution in order to meet water quality objectives at a minimum cost.

     Developed areas are subject primarily to housekeeping type techniques
—reduction of loadings being accomplished by actual  sweeping after the
fact.  Preventive approaches such as increasing percolation into the soil,
and attenuating runoff through surface storage, are possible and should
be considered when redevelopment occurs.  The highest degree of flexibility
of approach and probability of sucess is in the developing areas as control
can be built into the project.  The opportunity to contain the urban runoff
problem and avoid long term problems is such that high priority should be
given to planning and implementation of management programs in all  areas.

Information Sources

     Information on load estimating, management techniques, and tech-
nology assessment for the reduction and prevention of pollution from
urban runoff can be found in the following publications:

     1.   "Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of Water
     Pollution from Nonpoint Sources",  EPA-Project #68-01-2293, U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,  20460, November 1975.

     2.   "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff", EPA-440/9-75-004,
     U.S.,  Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.  20460
     December 1974.

     3.   "Practices  in  Detention  of Urban  Stormwater  Runoff",  Herbert
     Poertner, Office of Water Resources Research and Technology, U.S.
     Department of the  Interior,  Washington,  D.C.,  June  1974,  NTIS  order
     number:   PB 234554.

     4.   "Water Resources Protection Measures in  Land Development - A
     Handbook",  Office  of Water Resources  Research  and Technology,  U.S.
     Department of the  Interior,  Washington,  D.C.,  April 1974,  NTIS order
     number:   PB 236049.

     5.   "Urban  Stormwater Management and  Technology  - An Assessment",
     EPA-670/2-74-040,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Washington,
     D.C.,  20460,  December 1974.

-------
                                                             DRAFT
                      BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES          ^   * * *M* '37 §
                    TO MINIMIZE WATER POLLUTION  DUE               "   	
                          TO RESIDUAL WASTES
     The other nonpoint source categories  of  agriculture, silviculture,
mining, construction, urban runoff,  and  hydrologic modification often
produce residual wastes through their  activities.  These discarded
materials must be properly handled to  provide for our health and
environmental protection.   Our choices in  problem solution are
limited.  Wastes may be disposed of, recovered for some use, or
reduced at the source of generation.

     Millions of tons of residual  wastes are  disposed annually,
generally by burying or burning and  burying;  this results in various
degrees of environmental harm to air,  land and water.  Surface and
ground water damage result when the  pollutants from these residual
wastes are conveyed to waters by run-off and  infiltration.  Using
the residual waste generated by wastewater treatment plants as a base
factor of one, residential  and commercial  sources generate about 17
times as much waste as generated by wastewater treatment plants, and
industry produces about 35 times the base  amount.  Agriculture pro-
duces 2 1/2 times the waste produced by  industry, and mining produces
7 times that amount.

     The following guidance is intended  to provide information regarding
the control of pollution from nonpoint sources of residual wastes and
to supplement information  regarding control of residual waste pollution
associated with discharges  regulated under the requirements of NPDES.

                         Introduction

     Residual wastes are defined as those  solid, liquid, or sludge
substances frcm man's activities in the  urban, agricultural, Industrial,
and mining environment not  discharged  to water after collection and
necessary treatment.  Residual  wastes  include, but are not limited to:

        Sludges resulting  from water and domestic wastewater treatment,
        industrial processes,  utility  plant processes and mining
        processes;

        Solids resulting from industrial and  agricultural  processes
        and from nonprocess industrial and commercial activities
        (demolition wastes, mine tailings, incinerator residues,
        dredge spoil, crop  residues, feedlot wastes, and pesticide
        containers);

        Liquids resulting  from industrial  side streams and from agricul-
        tural product processing.

-------
                                -2-
      Residual wastes must be considered as largely untapped resources
with  unrealized potentials for beneficial uses.  The minimal use of
residual wastes has primarily resulted from the traditional considera-
tion  of such wastes as a problem rather than as potential assets.   The ocean
and land have been the final resting places for societies* residues/
because they have been the most economical. This attitude has resulted
in dumps with few siting considerations, a lack of site maintenance
and no emphasis for resource recovery.

      As treatment requirements become more stringent with further
implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control and Clean Air
Acts, residual wastes will greatly increase and will contain a wider
range and greater concentration of pollutants.

      Management programs for handling vast quantities of residuals
often fall short of providing adequate protection of water quality.
Frequently, procedures intended to abate air and water pollution problems
worsen residual waste problems.  Since residual wastes are the end-
product discards of all processes, the management of residual wastes
clearly cannot continue to be considered separately from the overall
management  processes and systems that produce the wastes.  Just as
the environment -- air, water and land — must be considered a
continuous whole, and be treated as such, residual waste problems
cannot be successfully segregated into individual components for
separate particularized handling.  All considerations must be inte-
grated into a problem-solving approach that will achieve total waste
management, on an areawide basis, with emphasis upon (1)  recovering
the resource values contained in any such wastes, and (2) the satis-
factory, sanitary disposal of any element or portion of the residual
wastes not amenable to resources recovery processing  or without
economic value for such processing.

                  Identification of Pollutants

     The types of wastes and their composition have changed greatly
over the past three decades, due largely, to changes in lifestyle
and to the great diversity of new products on the market.  The wastes
society  generates are conveniently classified into hazardous and
nonhazardous.   The biological,  chemical, and physical actions of
the environment can,  with unacceptable control measures, act on these
residuals to release  their hazardous and undesirable constituents to
the environment.

-------
                                -3-

      Water quality problems which can  result from the released waste
constituents exceeding the assimilative capacity of the receiving
water include:  aesthetic deterioration, dissolved oxygen depletion,
bacteria/virus contamination, suspended solids, dissolved solids,
nutrients, and metals/pesticides/persistent organic toxic compounds.
All of the above problems are directly or indirectly associated with
precipitation, which provides mobility to the waste constituents.

      For the most part, nonhazardous residual wastes are a local or
regional problem.  The Federal role has been to Identify and test
possible solutions, with State and local governments responsible for
implementation.  Hazardous residual wastes are a problem of national
scope, with Federal laws controlling the storage and disposal of
waste  pesticides and containers, and radioactive wastes.  This limited
Federal authority leaves many gaps in the disposal of hazardous wastes.

              Concept of Best Management Practices

     While the residual waste situation is technologically, economically,
governmentally and socially complex, it can be made to succumb to a
sound, results-oriented program of conceptualization, investigation,
analysis and evaluation, planning and programming and (most importantly)
the exercise of capable leadership and strong resolve to implement
areawide programs and systems.

     This approach infers  that residual waste problems can best be
corrected by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP)
which can be expected to result systematically in flow attenuation
of waters, waste stabilization, waste reduction, and resource  recovery
and recycling.   BMP approaches cannot be established and utilized
individually, but must be integrated into an overall system for the
effective management of residual wastes.  Everything works interdepend-
ently.  Flow attenuation, while reducing entrained run-off pollutants,
can actually increase infiltration and increase the requirement for
waste stablization.   Reducing wastes at the source by preventing the
production of wastes, and, at the disposal  end, through the'"resource
conservation can either eliminate the residues from many manufacturing
processes, before they appear as wastes, or prevent the residuals from
coming Into extensive, d1s-beneficial  contact with the environment.

                      Management Techniques

     Many techniques can be applied to'the management of residual wastes,
and the alternatives can be divided into two general categories:

     (1)  Innovation.  This would include,  particularly, the development
of source Feduction techniques (basically administrative) and systems for
the recovery or recycling of residual  wastes (basically technological
and Institutional).   Reference must be continually made to the total  waste
management system,  Including in-process  treatment;,or containment pro-
cedures .

-------
                              -4-

     (2)  Application of existing techniques.  This would involve the
utilization of demonstrated state-of-the-art techniques to remedy
problems; basically, this would be an extension of the present process.

     A BMP might be included in either of the above categories.
However, EPA encourages the first:  innovation.  Over the long term,
the innovative approach will result in accomplishing the greatest
source reduction and the greatest recovery of resources, as well as
the abatement of pollution.  Actually, pollution abatement is achieved
almost as a by-product of the innovative process.

     However, both approaches are equally amenable to standard admin-
istrative and regulatory practices.  The end goal of the approach
should be to provide sufficient reduction in pollutants to enable
the meeting of designated water quality objectives at minimum cost.

     Any BMP should consider thatvcost considerations are vital and
that treatment alternatives will be used  only when lower cost
alternatives fail to provide the required reduction in pollutants.
The greatest degree of freedom in alternative selection will be under
new source conditions where existing decisions and capital investments
will not be overriding factors.  These new source condition controls
will permit the greatest short-term accomplishment.  The implementation
of BMP's under existing source conditions cannot be accomplished
overnight.  The key to successful existing condition control is orderly
transition.  It is necessary that any action be phased in over time
in such a way that adverse consequences are minimized or eliminated.
The BMP concept must recognize that capital investments and Individual's
jobs must be counted and no change should be implemented until all
the benefits and costs have been weighed.  These criteria must1be
weighed against the urgency of water quality requirements and objectives,
which are insistent that certain ameliorating actions be taken.

     Solutions, under a BMP, should be directed toward meeting the
following key needs:

     .   the need to design a workable, flexible system;

     .   the need to use, establish, or modify appropriate institutional
        arrangements (laws, organizations, processes);

     .   the need to reduce uncertainties, promote actions to implement;

     .   the need to establish a sense of urgency, improve schedule;

     .   the need to establish a process of continuous Improvement
        through research and development in the local area;

-------
      .   the  need  to  help people get started on a coordinated basis —•
         incentivization;

      .   the  need  to  give adequate attention to all public information
         and  education programs.

      Any BMP must meet certain general and specific criteria.  General
 criteria are provided in the States Water Quality Management Guidelines.
 The  specific criteria for  a residual  waste BMP follow:

 Geographic Situation

      The geology  of our country can vary widely over short distances,
 resulting in numerous soil types and hydrologic profiles.  Residual
 waste disposal and use alternatives must consider these variables
 as they  determine the mobility of waste components in this under-
 ground portion of the environment.  Topography of the sites (terrain
 slope, type  of surface covering and distance between surface hydro-
 logical  features) affects waste component mobility.  The BMP must
 examine  these variables to prevent waste from being transferred between
 environmental structures, ultimately impacting water quality objectives.

 Meteorological Conditions

      The frequency, intensity, and duration of precipitation within and
 outside  of the site will affect the surface water infiltration and
 material  deposition and movement.   Precipitation can be in a number of
 forms, but rain and snowmelt account for the major volumes.   The ambient
 temperature  can determine the rate of snowmelt and the biological
 activity of  a site.  The absolute humidity as it affects biological
 activity and physio-chemical alterations of nonconservative waste
 components can make new products that are more or less environmentally
 toxic and mobile  than the parent material.   As meteorological  activity
 can directly affect water component mobility, the BMP must be compatible
with  these environmental influences.

 Demographic  Conditions

     The  practicability of certain BMP's can depend upon high densities
of population or  industry(ies) being present or absent in a given area.
 Frequently,  there are critical limits at which resource recovery and
waste reduction become feasible alternatives.   Also,  as mentioned
earlier!  Spltol  iSSStment and individuals'  jobs must be weighed when
considering  implementation of a given BMP,

                Infrastructure
     TNhe BMP must address more than the residual  wastes,  their composition
and thpfr movement.and the    . technical  or technological  problems  of
their management. JAny waste management system that is  handling a problem
aTi*rvts1?e asthe management of residual  wastes must  be inlaid into a
socio-economic and socio-politicel "envelope"  that has  its own problems

-------
 in dealing with the type of management system that will ultimately
 emerge for the management of residual wastes.  These problems will
 include the development of areawide  (regional) resolve to implement,
 and a structure and process through which management may be exercised.
 Developing these programmatic elements in the face of interlocal/inter-
 governmental political and economic rivalries,and the social differences
 that may occur within a given region calls for the development of new
 patterns for working together, new programs for promoting public under-
 standing and reducing public apathy)and the devising of such instruments
 of public policy as strong local and State legislation to establish
 viable structure and process and reduce marketing uncertainties.

     The following specific examples of alternative  strategies  are
 provided for planning purposes only.  They are not recommendations.
 Use of any one or more of these specific examples should be based upon
 a comprehensive, areawide, interdisciplinary investigation and the
 development of specific recommendations from the data.

 Source Reduction

     The source reduction strategy involves techniques which are
 basically legislative and administrative in nature.   Examples include:

     ,  Design and use of products that live longer.

     .  Design and use of products which have less material  weight.

     .  Monetary incentives (beverage container deposits).

Resource Conservation

     Source Separation and Centralized Processing.  The source separation
strategy involves a system of low technology techniques.   Examples include:

     .  Separation of waste materials in the home.

     .  Separation of waste materials at commercial  establishments.

     .  Separation of waste materials at industrial  establishments.

     The centralized processing strategy involves high technology,
capital-intensive systems.   Examples include:

     .  Fuel  (solid, gas,  liquid) and material (ferrous and  nonferrous
        metals, glass) recovery plants.

     .  Energy conversion  facilities (retrofits, new boilers).

     .  Material conversion facilities (de-tinning plants, minimills,
        glass products plants,  smelters).

     •  Transportation systems.

-------
                            -7-
 Disposal

     The  disposal strategy generally involves low-technology systems.
 Examples  include:

     .  Construction and demolition waste;

     .  Lined lagoon and landfill

     .  Waste stabilization;

     .  Landfill stockpiling for potential future recovery.
                          Information Sources
     EPA has published numerous reports describing methods for
management practices and preventive techniques for the control of
residual wastes resulting from man's activities.  Many of the
practices described above are discussed In some detail 1n the
following publications.  This listing is by no means exhaustive
and the user 1s encouraged to look further.

     .  Residual Waste Management Research and Planning Projects,
        EPA-WPD 09-75-01, September 1975.

     .  Sludge Processing, Transportation and Disposal/Resource
        Recovery:  A Planning Perspective; EPA-WPD 12-75-01,
        December 1975.

     .  Interim Report on Loading Functions for Assessment of
        Water Pollution From Nonpolnt Sources, EPA Project
        No. 68-01-2293, November 1975.

     .  Development of Residual Management Strategies EPA 600/1-76-01
        January 1976.

     .  Residual Waste-Best Management Practices Handbook,
        EPA-WPD 02-76-01, February 1976.

     Additional Information regarding Institutional structures and
methods of Implementation will be provided 1n later publications.

-------
                                                      OEC18
                  BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              TO MINIMIZE WATER POLLUTION DUE
                 TO HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
Introduction
    Many development activities within planning areas necessitate
hydrologic modifications as an essential feature.   These include
(1) channel modifications; (2) construction of dams to impound stream
flows;  (3) other types of construction activities; and  (4) resource
recovery operations actually located in  streambeds.  In addition, there
are many  land development activities which, if not properly controlled,
may result in unintended, and often undesirable, hydrologic modifications.
In many instances these activities result in topographic and ground cover
changes which could affect surface runoff rates, volume and direction
adversely.  Such effects are  often experienced in areas undergoing
rapid urbanization.

    Hydrologic modifications may be of  local or regional scope, and
are being  (or have been) implemented in areas extending throughout
the nation, affecting both intra-and interstate  waterways.

-------
                                -2-
Description of Hydrologic Modifications

    Hydrologic modifications resulting in nonpoint source pollution are
activities that either directly or indirectly affect, or have affected,
the natural stream-flow and associated groundwater regime detriment-
ally.  Pollutants  are consequently added to the surface and ground
waters from the diffuse runoff, or by seepage or percolation.  The
levels of many of these pollutants are influenced by climatic events such
as rainfall and the seasonal temperature  changes, in addition to the effects
of soil types and topography, and operating practices.  Reference to
hydrologic modifications as sources of non-point pollution should not be
mis-construed as eliminating them from  consideration as point sources
with respect to certain aspects, which require control under the NPDES
and 404(e) permit programs.

Channel Modifications

    Channel modifications are implemented primarily for flood control,
erosion reduction or for drainage purposes. Such structural changes
as dikes,  levees, piers, docks, bridges and road fills may require or
result in channel modifications which would not otherwise have occured.
There are seven different types of modifications which are potential
nonpoint sources of pollutants.  They are:

    1.  Clearing  and snagging operations to restore the former hydraulic
       capacity  of a streambed.  This is basically a periodic maintenance
       operation.

    2.  Channel excavations which enlarge and reshape an existing
       channel,  or which provide a new channel in its place.

    3.  Channel realignment to eliminate  meanders that have developed
       in the natural streambed.

   . 4.  Construction of floodways to relieve the streambed of excessive
       flows of storm water.  These are normally dry.

    5.  Construction of retarding basins for the temporary storage of
       excess flows of storm water.

    6.  Construction of debris retention basins to hold back debris
       during periods of high water, which might otherwise result
       in extensive downstream erosion and pollution.

    7.  Construction of drainage ditches or deepening existing ditches.

-------
                               -3-
Impoundments

    Dams are constructed to impound surface waters for water supply,
flood control, fish and wildlife,  hydropower,  navigation, irrigation,
flow diversion, low flow augmentation,  and combinations of some or all
of these reasons.  They are usually assigned to'one of the  two following
categories:

    1.  Run-of-the-river impoundments, which characteristically have
       low heads and water detention times limited to a few days.

    2.  Storage reservoirs, which are usually located on tributaries,
       with high heads, and encompassing an extensive area outside the
       original channel.

Various Construction Activities

    All types of ground-disturbing construction activities result in
modifications to existing drainage flows,  and if not given adequate design
consideration,  such hydrologic changes may become sources  of water
pollution.  Construction nonpoint sources of pollution are the  subject
of a separate guidance document,  and will not be covered here in detail.
When a construction project includes potential nonpoint sources result-
ing from hydrologic modifications, those best management practices
recommended in that document need to be implemented.

Resource Recovery Operations

    The resource recovery activity of primary importance is  that of
the sand  and gravel operation.   However, mineral recovery operations
of any kind which will disturb the existing streambed must be considered,
as well as should oil and gas wells (exploratory and production), located
in bodies of water.

Withdrawal and Recharge Activities

    Surface  and ground water withdrawal and  recharge activities may
produce undesirable effects such as reducing waste assimilative capacity,
damage to fisheries,  saltwater encroachment, surface subsidance,  induced
recharge, and mixing of water in aquifers of  differing water quality.

Other Types of Activities

    Concurrently prepared best management practices guidelines are
available for activities incorporating hydrologic modifications in
agriculture, silviculture and other categories, in addition to construction.
However, best  management practices should be applied for all other
activities involving hydrologic modifications, even if they  are not
specifically identified by guidelines.

-------
                               -4-
 Identification of Pollutants

    Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that result from
 hydrologic modifications are:

    1.   Sediment - Sediments are one of the most prevalent non-point
 source pollutants, occurring as a result of most types of hydrologic
 modification activities to varying degrees.  The degree of pollution
 from sediments will vary with streamflow, snowmelt and rainfall runoff,
 soil types, and bedload characteristics, and will be most intense during the
 period when construction activities have removed vegetative cover,
 until it can become re-established.  Since they are a naturally occuring
 phenomenon, present due to erosional processes, they will normally be
 evident to some degree even with application of best management practices
 to control manmade sources.  Where the sediments settle, bottom organisms'
 can be smothered,  and spawning beds can be destroyed.  The increased
 turbidity during the transport phase will interfere with ligh penetration,
 hindering photosynthesis, and is a hazard to boaters, swimmers and
 water skiers.  Sediments are also carriers of nutrients and pesticides
 which may have become adsorbed to their surfaces.

    2.  Nutrients-Where Hydrologic Modifications located in agriculture -
 intensive areas result in increase runoff rates and streamflow velocities,
 the natural level of nutrients may be increased.  In urban areas, similar
 circumstance will increase nutrient levels as a result of fertilization of
 lawns and gardens, but the amount of increase will be lower.   Soil
 erosion also  contributes to the problem by carrying adsorbed nutrients
 well beyond the areas that would normally be affected.

    3.  Pesticides- A similar pollution problem may be experienced with
 respect to pesticides as was described for nutrients, unless integrated
 pest management has been instituted.

    4.   Thermal- This form of pollution may result from channel mod-
 ifications  or impoundment construction.  Not only is the temperature
 change that might occur a problem by itself with respect to sensitive
 aquatic life, but it can lead to serious changes in the dissolved oxygen
 level in the water body.  As an example of the type of problem that might
be experienced in channel modification,  if the normal tree cover is
 removed,  and the channel is widened to handle design flood flows, the
 resulting shallow normal flow will be exposed to increased solar radiation*
with attendant temperature increases, and a reduced capacity for dissolved
 oxygen.  Impoundments that become stratified during the  summer and
winter may become oxygen deficient, which can,  in turn,  cause low
 dissolved  oxygen problems downstream of the discharge.

-------
                               -5-
    5.   Chemicals- Hydrologic modifications such as dredging, with the
attendant necessity to suitably dispose of the spoil, may result in
release of pollutant chemicals from the spoil through leaching
or percolation.  The fines re-suspended in the streambed are another
potential source of pollution if adsorbed chemicals are released.  Changes
in pH and dissolved oxygen levels that may occur in impoundments may
cause release into solution of certain types of chemicals  previously
insoluble.  Modifications  that lowered the  groundwater table sufficiently
in coastal areas could result in saltwater intrusion into a freshwater
aquifer,  with attendant salinity degradation.

    Chemical stabilization techniques applied for control of fugitive
dust and/or nonpoint source pollution will  require coordination.
Techniques  selected must be complementary, rather than conflicting, with
the choice of action selected being that which produces the best total end
result, with respect to control of both nonpoint source pollution and
fugitive dust.

    6.   Microorganisms - Modifications could result in pathogenic
micr©organisms entering the  water from runoff or percolation and
seepage.  Changes in the  existing flow regime must consider the effect
on potential sources of such organisms.

Considerations For Best Management Practices Selection

    Best Management Practices for hydrologic modifications is the most
practical and effective measure,  or combination of measures, which
will prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants, upon  implementation,
to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    The BMP selected for a specific hydrologic modification will not
necessarily be the same in different areas of the country.  Soil types,
topography, climate, existing condition, local zoning and land use
regulations, etc., must be considered in assessing the problem.  The
final determination of which BMP alternatives to apply in any specific
case must suit the site conditions, and include appropriate public part-
icipation.  BMP must be considered at the earliest stage practicable,
and throughout the problem identification and analysis planning, design
and construction phases.

    The principal emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent, or minimize nonpoint source pollutants which would be
generated by the specific  hydrologic modification.  All preventive measures
must be fully integrated into the total management system for every
hydrologic modification.  In brief, the changes introduced should
produce conditions similar to those existing in nature which past
experience has proved will effectively control the potential pollutants,
and maintain or improve the water quality, while avoiding changes which
would be detrimental.

-------
                                -6-
    As in other areas of nonpoint source pollution, erosion control
measures are an essential feature of most hydrologic modifications.
Controlling sediment-bearing runoff will reduce the amount of adsorbed
nutrients, pesticides and other chemicals  that reach the nation's
waters.  Designs for modification must recognize this problem and
provide suitable construction provisions as a part of the project.
(With respect to pesticides, integrated pest management must be
given suitable consideration. ) Subsequent operation and maintenance
activities must continue to apply best management practices to assure
the continued success of the pollution prevention measures.

    The potential for thermal pollution problems must be assessed
for some types of hydrologic modifications,  and suitable control
measures must be applied.  The choice of type of modification may
even be determined by the need to control  pollution of this type.

Prevention and Reduction Measures

    The measures which can be applied to  hydrologic modifications to
prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface  or ground waters
may be vegetative,  structural or institutional or a combination,  in
addition to those mentioned for agriculture,  silviculture, etc., in the
documents developed for pollutants related to those  activities. Institut-
ional measures relating to land use should not be  overlooked, but will
be more easily applied in non-urbanized locations.  The variety  of
structural and vegetative control measures will be discussed in detail
in applicable sections of this handbook.

-------
                            DRAFT
                             1 8 DEC 1375
                BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
                  MINING NONPOINT SOURCES
                     WATER POLLUTION
    Mining activities in the United States have affected approxi-
mately 13 million acres of land according to estimates by the U.  S.
Department of the Interior.  This acreage includes almost 7 million
acres which have been undercut by mining activities,  and more than
3 million acres disturbed by surface mining activities.  The remaining
acreage represents land used for containing mining-related mineral
waste accumulations.  By the year 2000, the Department of the Interior
estimates that 30 million acres will be affected by mining operations.
While the land area presently affected by mining represents  only about
0.5% of the United States,  the effects of mining upon water quantity
and quality are spread over large regions.

Introduction

    Pollution from mining operations arises because the hydrology of
surface and subsurface waters is altered when the earth's crust is
disturbed to gain access  to mineral values held within.  The quality
of these waters very often deteriorates, and the quantity is often re-
disturbed as a result of mining operations.  Water quality deteriorates
when water supplies are  contaminated with soluble products  present in
or generated from mining wastes. Water quantity is affected because
natural drainage patterns for surface and subsurface waters are altered.
Any-disturbance of the earth's crust will alter the environment in the
vicinity of the disturbance.  The degree to which the environment is
altered depends upon the size and depth of the disturbance, the method
of the disturbance, and the nature of the disturbed materials.  The
purpose of disturbing the earth in mining is  to extract mineral deposits.
Methods used are determined by the placement of the minerals in the
earth.  Similarly, size and depth of the mine are  determined by the
distribution of the mineral at the mining site.

   The extraction of minerals from the earth's crust can be accomplished
by a variety of techniques.  For minerals deep in the earth,  mine shafts
are sunk to gain access to the deposit.   This method is usually not
used if mineral deposits  are available for recovery by surface mining
techniques. Underground mining techniques tend  to retrieve most of
the values in the deposit compared to surface mining techniques.

   Surface mining creates more visible defacement of the earth's surface,
and results in disturbance of large land curves.

-------
                                                DRAFT
                                                 1 8 DEC 1975

    The most serious pollutant arising from mining activities is the
 mine drainage generated by oxidation of pyritic materials with air in the
 presence of water; this drainage is an acidic mixure of iron salts,
 other salts and sulfuric acid.  Mine drainage arises from both
 underground and surface mining sources, and from coal and many
 metal mining operations.   Coal deposits and  so-called hard rock mineral
 deposits are commonly associated with pyrite and marcasite, which are
 disulfides of iron.  Acid mine drainage  can find its way into surface
 waters, where the acid and sulfate  may result in severe deterioration
 in stream quality.  The acid can react with clays to yield  aluminum
 concentrations sufficient for fish kills,  and with limestone to yield
 very hard waters expensive to soften.  The acid can also selectively
 extract heavy metals present in trace quantities in mineral and soil
 formations, resulting in toxic conditions in lakes and streams.

    Mining refuse waste materials left near the mining site after
 raw minerals have been cleaned or concentrated is another source of
 pollution.  Much of this refuse  contains pyritic material which can be
 oxidized to acidic substances.  The resultant acid water may remain
 in the pile until a rainstorm, at which time it is flushed into  nearby
 watercourses.  Mine drainage "slugs" during storms are very detrimental
 to aquatic life in surface waters.

    Mining operations also generate wastes, commonly called spoil, in
 the form of disturbed rock and  soil. If this spoil is left in piles, erosion
 and runoff will carry sediment into streams.   This sediment is capable
 of destroying life in streams,  results in decreased capacity of streams
 and reservoirs,  and destroys fish and wildlife habitats.

    Improperly impounded sediment may be released suddenly as a
 mud slide and thus poses a direct threat to life and property.

    Mining activities have a pronounced effect on groundwater supplies.
 The various operations used to mine the mineral deposits can result
 in alteration of groundwater distribution patterns.  Aquifers  containing
 good water can become contaminated because some mining may
 disturb bedrock  formations, which permit mixing of contaminated water
with good.

 Description of Mining Pollution


    Water pollution caused by drainage from mining activities occurs
 when dissolved, suspended, or other solid mineral wastes and debris
 from mining and related operations enter receiving streams or ground
water. Mine drainage includes both water flowing by gravity or pumped
from underground mines,  and runoff or seepage from surface mines
 and from excavated waste materials. Polluting drainage is often corrosive,
highly mineralized, toxic to aquatic life, and may be laden with chemical
and/or soil sediments.

-------
                                                DRAFT
                                                 1 8 DEC 1975
    Pollutants may be generated during all phases of the mining cycle
whether the commodity is coal,  sand and gravel,  uranium, metallic ore
or nonmetallic ore;  exploration, development, mine operation, closure,
and reclamation. In many cases, water pollution can continue  long
after a mine has ceased operation.  Pollution caused by inactive or
abandoned mines ("orphans") presents special problems of abatement.

    Mine drainage pollutants include such  dissolved and suspended
constituents as acid, alkali, iron, copper, arsenic, cadmium,  nickel,
phosphate,  sulfate,  chloride, radioactive  minerals, sediment,  and colloidal
contaminants. The acids, alkalies, metals, and other minerals in mine
drainage affect water quality and water use in various ways.  To many
the most dramatic effects of mine drainage pollution are the destruction
of fish and  other aquatic  life and impairment to aesthetic features.  Mine
drainage pollution may affect the use of water for municipal,  industrial
 and agricultural water supply by increasing the costs for water treatment.

Identification of Sources  of Pollutants

    Various active unit operations within a surface or underground
mining operation produce pollutants that can ultimately enter both
surface and ground waters causing  a lowering of water quality. The
discharge of pollutants from certain of these unit operations have been
classified as point sources by EPA, and certain of them have been  classified
classified as nonpoint sources.  Inactive and abandoned mine sites
can be considered nonpoint sources.

    Nonpoint pollution from mining  activities are strongly dependent on
precipitation events although there  may be a  significant response delay
when the ground water is the source of seepage water. The sources may
be intermittent or continuous in nature. The nature and amount of pollutants
are dependent on such factors as soil type, topography, geology, method
of mining,  and hydrologic characteristics of  the site.

Mining Activities

    The basic mining activities that are potential causes of nonpoint
pollution sources are:

      Exploration is conducted to locate a seam  or other economic
deposit and to obtain quantity /quality  data on that deposit.  Site access,

-------
                                                 DRAFT
                                                 1 a r.rp
                                                 A w J.Y. Ij

excavation,  and drilling activities can cause surface denudation and
erosion,  mineralized ground water discharge, leaching of exposed
mineralogic materials,  and chemicals seepage or release.

       Construction of the mine and support facilities including roads
can be a major generator of pollutants.
                     *
       Runoff and seepage of ground or surface waters may contact mineral
matter exposed by the operation and result in mineralized drainage. Slides
of unstable spoil piles or disturbed steep slopes  can occur causing further
landscape and stream damages.

        Following the mining operation the improper  sealing of underground
mines as well as unsucessful revegetation and reclamation of inactive
surface mines.

Pollutant Generation and Their  Causes

    Land disturbed by surface mining is a major source of sediment in
mining regions. Studies have shown that erosion and sedimentation rates
on strip-mined land are 500 times as great as those on neighboring land
that has not been stripped.  Overburden dumped on the downslope areas
is one of the largest  sources of sediment. The post-operative mining
period can be the  period of most severe erosion. When eroded sediment
is transported to a receiving stream it can smother bottom organisms,
interfere with photosynthesis by reducing light penetration, and contribute
to flooding by filling  stream channels.

    Acid mine waters result from oxidation of pyrite and  other iron-bearing
minerals in deposits of anthracite and bituminous coals.  The reaction
of these exposed sulfur-bearing minerals (usually sulfides) with
atmospheric oxygen and water frequently forms a sulfuric acid solution
that reacts with soil  and rock materials to leach out other pollutants,
commonly metals. The acidic water can be toxic to aquatic life and corrosive
to manmade structures.

    Dissolved minerals contained in mine waters can be present in sufficient
concentrations to be  toxic to aquatic life. Heavy metals such as copper,
nickel and zinc may be present  in toxic concentrations, as well as chloride,
sulfate, or other troublesome ions.  Even though one or more constituents -
is not present in toxic amounts  considered singly, toxic conditions can
result from synergestic effects among various constituents.

    The total mineralization, total dissolved solids  content, of a water
can present a salinity problem.  It normally occurs when salts contained
in geologic formations are  penetrated by mining and the resulting saline
mine runoff waters enter into receiving streams or ground waters.
Aquatic life can be harmed and  expensive treatment may  be required
for certain uses of that water.

-------
                               -5-
                                                     1 8 DEC 1S75


    The control of water pollution from mining activities is achieved
through proper operational management and utilization of preventive
techniques, and by mine water treatment. Control of mining  nonpoint
pollution sources is best achieved through prevention or avoidance. The
utilization of preventive and management techniques is the primary thrust
for the control of nonpoint mining pollutants.

    There are four premises upon which mining pollution control of
nonpoint sources is based:

    1.  That any disturbance of the earth for mineral extraction alters
the hydrologic environment to form some amount of water pollutants;

    2.  That each mine  site represents a unique set of chemical/physical
and hydrologic conditions;

    3.  That effective and efficient environmental protection from mining
impact requires a total mining plan before extraction occurs that covers
management control and preventive measures implementation throughout
the mining cycle.  Thus, the plan must cover activities initiated and
implemented during the pre-extraction and extraction phases, and
conclude after extraction has terminated and adequate restoration of the
site has been accomplished;

    4.  That a combination of several management and engineering techniques
is usually required to effect a complete pollution control plan that prevents
or minimizes pollutants reaching ground or surface waters.

Basis For Best Management Practices Development for Mining Activities

     "Best Management Practices" (BMP) means a practice, or combination
of practices, that is determined after problem assessment and examination
 of alternative practices,  to be the most effective, practicable (including
technological, economic,  and institutional considerations) means of preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a
level compatible with water quality goals.

     Best Management  Practices for mining activities are the most practical
and effective measures, or combination of measures,  which  when applied
to a mine production sit^will prevent or reduce the generation of pollutants
to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    Each identified BMP will differ with the kind of mining,  geographic
area and conditions, and the extent and age of the mine.   A new mine may
have a different BMP than an older mine in the same locale.  BMP
judgements for any specific site will recognize special problems such
as poor soils, unstable slopes, toxic conditions, and unfavorable geologic
structure. Existing regulatory requirements, future land use, and economic
effects will influence BMP developments.

-------
                                -6-
                                                     1 8 DEC 1975
   There are a wide variety of measures available that will materially
reduce the amount of pollutants generated at a surface or underground
mine site.  Selection and blending of the appropriate measures through
the mining cycle can be categorized in terms of four objectives.

    1.  Prevention of an increase in the mineralization of the ground or
surface waters intercepted by earth disturbance activities:

    The quantity and quality of  mine water produced can be greatly influenced
by various techniques of surface  diversion,  subsurface dewatering and
collection, segregration of toxic  mineral matter,  and proper management
and handling of intercepted water.

    2.  Minimization of erosion and sediment transport from all
surfaces necessarily removed  of cover:

    Erosion and sediment transport are problems of surface mining and
surface facilities of underground mining. Measures to mitigate these
phenomena should include grading, compaction, sediment traps and early
revegetation of disturbed areas.

    3.  Careful residuals management of all mining wastes to prevent
leaching and erosion:

    Measures to control the adverse affects of residual materials stored
on the land surface are generally the same as those used in water diversion
and erosion control.

    4.  Prevention of post-operative pollution via proper mine closure
and/or reclamation measures:

    Mine closure and land reclamation are critical processes in the total
mining plan.  Closure of underground mines to prevent continued polluting
drainage is more difficult than surface  activity but a number of sealing
and diversion techniques are effective in preventing or reducing continuing
problems.  A multitude of surface reclamation practices are effective
and available.  They can be classed as  measures to segregate overburden
and bury toxic materials, return topsoil, control erosion and sedimentation,
moderate topography,  stabilize disturbed areas, and permanently revegetate
the area.

                       Information Sources

    EPA has published various reports  describing methods for management
practices and preventive techniques for the  control of pollutants from
mining activities.  The titles of current publications include:

-------
                              -7-
                                                   DRAFT
                                                   1 8 DEC 1375
    o    Processes, Procedures, and Methods to Control Pollution
        from Mining Activities, EPA-430/9-73-011, October 1973 .

    o    Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent
        of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants,  EPA-430/9-73-014,
        October 197 3.

    o    Analysis of Pollution Control Costs,  EPA-670/2-74-009,
        February 1974.

    o    Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal,
        EPA-670/2-74-093, October 1974.

    o    Inactive and Abandoned Underground Mines, Water Pollution
        Prevention and Control, EPA-440/9-75-007,  June 1975.

    o    Criteria for Developing Pollution Abatement Programs
        for Inactive and Abandoned Mine Sites, EPA-440/9-75-009,
        August 1975.

    o    Compilation of Federal, State  and Local Laws Controlling
        Nonpoint Pollutants, EPA-440/9-75-OU, September 1975.

    Additional information on features  and design of specific measures
is available in the publications and handbooks of other,Federal and State
agencies and in various mining industry publications.

    EPA is committed to the management,  prevention and control of
pollutants from mining sources.  Authority exists under sections 208, 209,
303 (e) and 313 of P. L, 92-500 for EPA to initiate a program in conjunction
with the States to manage nonpoint sources, although the the primary
 responsibility for nonpoint source management rests with the States.
Establishment and implementation of nonpoint source management programs
will be a part of the areawide planning process in designated 208 areas
as well as a part of the State water quality management responsibilities
in non-designated areas.

    Point Sources of Mining Pollutants will be controlled thru the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.

-------
                     Best Management Practices                  \C>jy
                   Silvicultural Nonpoint Sources of
                         Water Pollution
    Silviculture is the cultivation and harvesting of timber for commercial
purposes.  As such, the term includes all activities related to its
purpose from the planting of seeds,  through those involved in the maturing
of the crop, its harvest and transportation from the growing area.  In
addition to being performed on approximately 500 million acres of
commercial forest land utilized for the continuous production of marketable
timber, portions of the overall silvicultural activity take place on a number
of lands being transferred from a wooded state  to another use.

Introduction

    This guidance  is intended to provide information regarding the control
of pollution from silvicultural nonpoint sources, and to supplement
information regarding control of silvicultural associated discharges
regulated under the provisions of the NPDES and 404(e) permit programs.

    Silvicultural activities can result in the development of significant
sources of pollutants which  may reach surface or ground water, most
often due to a climatic event, although certain construction or hydrographic
modification activities have been recognized under the 404(e) program
as being essentially due to a specific activity of man.

    While  all silvicultural activities are inter-related, those activities
producing pollutants can be  divided into four classes:  (1) Access systems
(log roads and other access and transport systems); (2) harvesting; (3)
crop regeneration; and (4) intermediate practices and activities.  The
amount of pollutants generated by these activities are strongly dependent
upon the magnitude and characteristics of climatic events,  the physical
characteristics of the area  (soil type, topography, etc. ), and the
characteristics of the individual operations as they are practiced in a
specific area.

Description of Silvicultural  Activities

    The four general classes of activities associated with silviculture which
may produce pollutants are:

    1.  Access Systems- The forest access road system is constructed to
provide access for man, materials and equipment to production units
and to  serve as routes for transport of harvested logs from the
production unit.  Such roads are also used for management and
protection of successive timber crops, and for  other access purposes,
including recreation.  In terms of construction, these roads range

-------
                               -2-
from very narrow trails, through unsurfaced roads to higher speed
paved roads.  The frequency of use is highly variable ranging from
intensive use to only occasional usage over a number of years.

    Nationally, and in certain specifications the forest road system
is the major contributor of sediment to the streams in forested areas.
These sediment loads may originate as a result of road construction
(including stream crossings), direct erosion from the roads, indirect
erosion caused by changes in drainage patterns and systems, and
mass soil movement due to slides and slips.

    In addition to the sediment problems, additional pollution problems
may be  created due to debris (organic pollution) resulting from construction
and log  transport, and from herbicides used to control re-growth in
the  right-of-way.

    2.  Harvesting Systems-- The harvest system includes the process
of felling the tree, preparing it by de-limbing and cutting into desired
lengths, and moving it to a central accessable location for transport
out  of the forested area.  The four basic harvest systems used in the
United States include seed tree, shelterwood,  selection and clear-cutting.

    The harvesting of timber results in removal of cover, to some degree,
from the forest floor.  Improper choice (or performance) of the harvesting
system  may seriously increase the  erosion phenomena and consequently,
the  potential for sediment pollution.  Similarly soil movement may occur
due to increased percolation  resulting from removal of the vegetative cover.

    After felling, the timber  is moved (yarded) to a temporary storage site
or "landing" by one of three basic general methods--tractor (on skid trails).
high lead, or skyline cable.  Recently, timber producers have also exper-
imented with ballon and helicopter.   Obviously,  the magnitude, the disturbance
of earth, and vegetative cover would be reflected on the erosive tendency
with its consequent danger of sediment pollution.  Each system, when
properly chosen and operated can minimize environmental problems.

    In addition to the sediment pollution,  the harvesting system can create
organic pollution problems due to debris and slash washed from the forest
floor or otherwise reaching streams, pollution due to various chemicals
used in  the growing and harvesting operation,  and thermal poUution due  to
removal of the canopy over streams.

    3.   Crop Regeneration-   Regeneration of a harvested area includes both
the  natural regenerative process and man's activities in preparing and improving
the  site followed by planting  or reseeding.  The major activities include (a)
debris removal to reduce  fire hazard and allow use of equipment for  sub-
sequent operations, (b) reduction or removal of brush cover and undesireable
species of trees and,  (c) cultivation of the soils.

-------
                               -3-
    The use of fire,  chemicals and soil disturbing machinery increase
the potential for sediment and other pollution to occur.  The time span
for such pollution to occur is variable depending upon the climatic factors
and operational schedule.

    4.  Intermediate Practices-  Other silvicultural processes relating to
thinning of an immature forest, fertilizer application and pesticide treatments
are undertaken during the crop cycle.  In general these activities are
infrequent during the crop cycle.

    The thinning process involves the removal of selected trees from
an immature forest, in essence a type of harvesting, which would tend to
generate sediment pollution, but at a lesser rate than harvesting.

    Chemical application, (fertilizers and pesticides) can result in water
pollution, if improperly carried out or adversely affected by extreme and
unexpected natural event.

Pollutants Originating from Silvicultural Activities

    The principle pollutants generated by silvicultural activities are
sediments and debris; chemicals, including nutrients,  pesticides,  and
fire retardants; and thermal effects. The origin of the pollutants is generally
related to more than one of the activities of the total silvicultural operation.

    1.  Sediment—Sediments are the most common pollutants resulting
from silvicultural activities.  The sediments principally result from the
erosion of soils,  but may also include debris and other organic waste.
Sediments upset balanced ecology within streams by  smothering bottom
organisms in water bodies through the formation of bottom blankets,
interfere with the photosynthesis processes by reducing light pentration,
serve as carriers of nutrients and pesticides, inhibit fish reproduction of
many important species, and by altering stream flow and speed.

   2.  Nutrients.-- Nutrients,  above the natural levels of an area,  generally
result from the application of fertilizers. Soluble nutrients may reach
surface or ground water through runoff, seepage, and percolation.  Insoluble
forms may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface water through
erosion processes.  Nutrients may also reach surface water by direct washoff
of slash, debris,  and recently applied fertilizer.  Excessive nutrients can
lead to imbalance in the natural life cycles  of water bodies and in some cases
can be a health hazard.

    3.  Pesticides --  Pesticides applied during forest management activites
may be insoluble  or soluble.  The entrance of pesticides into the surface
or ground waters follows approximately the same pattern as nutrients.
Pesticides may result in acute toxicity problems in the water bodies; or
insidious toxicity problems through the entire food chain from lowest to the
highest forms of life.

-------
                               -4-
    4.   Organic Pollutants—  Debris,i.e., slash and other non-
merchanable materials,  are the principle organic pollutants that result
from silvicultural activities.  The pollutants may reach surface waters
through direct dumping,  washoff, and leachate from log storage.  The
organic materials place an oxygen demand on the receiving waters
during their decomposition.  In addition they may lead to other problems
such as tastes, odors, color, and nutrients.

    5.  Thermal—  Thermal pollution from silvicultural activities most
often results from the removal of canopy cover from stream bodies
causing water temperature to rise.  Temperature is a significant water
quality parameter. It strongly influences dissolved oxygen concentrations
and bacteria populations in streams.  The  saturated dissolved oxygen
concentrations in streams is inversely  related to temperature.

Best Management  Practices for Pollution from Silviculture

    Best Management Practices for silvicultural sources is the most
practical and effective measure or combination of measures which,  when
applied to the forest management unit,  will prevent or reduce the
generation of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    In BMP selection,  it should be recognized that the variability in
sources, topography, climate, soils, etc.,  will in most cases preclude
a single BMP covering all activities or  situations.  The BMP must be
tailored to the needs of the particular source and physical  conditions.

    The principle emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or reduce  the pollutants in the runoff, seepage,  or percolation
from the forest management unit. The  preventive measures must be
fully integrated into the total management system for the particular
forest management unit.   In essence, the soils, nutrients, pesticides,
and other chemicals must be kept on the land area where they perform
their intended function of assisting tree growth.

    Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff, erosion control
measures must be a principle thrust of  the preventive program of each
management unit.   Particular attention  must be paid to erosion prevention
measures for logging roads and harvesting activities.  In addition to primary
control measures,  supplemental measures such as debris  and sediment
basins should be included where necessary to further reduce or prevent the
entrance of sediments, slash, and debris into water bodies.  Where nutrients,
pesticides and other chemicals cause particular problems  in surface or
ground waters, further control measures may be necessary.  The measures
would principally relate to the application (timing,  method, and amount),
utilization, and management of the fertilizers, pesticides, and fire retardant
chemicals.  Care must be exercised to  insure that thermal problems in
streams are not created by removal of  shade canopy. . Attention to proper
forest management, engineering and harvesting principles can substantially
reduce all pollution attributable to silviculture.

-------
                               -5-
Prevention and Reduction Measures

    The measures which can be applied to a timber management unit
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface and/or ground
waters can be classified as two (2) general types.  These are (1) non-
structural or management decision measures, and (2) structural or
physical measures.

    Management decision measures involve incorporation of water
quality protection considerations into the planning and design of activites
within the timber management  unit.  It is at this stage that logging access
roads locations and design, harvesting methods, and reforestation
decisions must be made.  Structural measures generally involve some
physical method or technique utilized to reduce erosion and prevent
sediment runoff.

    Nonstructural measures can be effective methods of reducing  pollution
generated by silvicultural activities, e.g.:

    A.  Pollution emenating from access systems may be greatly  decreased
        by careful location, design,  construction and maintance of the roads.
        The importance of not utilizing waterways or normally wet areas as
        part of the road-access system cannot be over emphasized.

    B.  Pollution caused by the harvesting operation can be reduced,
        under certain soil conditions, by mininizing the disturbance or
        compaction of the soil. Careful location and use of skid trails,
        particular when the ground is wet, will reduce sediment gen-
        eration due to the skidding operation.  As in the case of roads,
        skid trails should not be located in normally wet areas, nor should
        they utilize streams as part  of the route.  Like road, the trails
        should follow the countour of the land rather than provide long steep
        grades.  Careful handling of debris will prevent accumulation,
        which tend to act as dams in streams, and which on breakup, result
        in high stream velocities causing channel erosion.  Early re veget-
        ation of disturbed areas will provide  stabilization of the soil, thus
        minimizing erosion.

   C;   Pollution caused by the regeneration activity and intermediate
        practices can be minimized by application of proper techniques
        under favorable conditions by well trained and supervised
        personnel.  Additional techniques, such as provisions of buffer
        strips along streams may be useful.

-------
                               -6-
    Structural measures are utilized when necessary to further reduce
erosion and prevent sediment runoff.  These measures include culverts,
ditches, berms, catch basins, slope stablization, and various road
building techniques.

Information Sources

    Reduction measures and preventive techniques are generally
described in "Processes,  Procedures, and Methods to Control
Pollution Resulting from Silvicultural Activities" , EPA 420/9-73-010*
More Specific information on logging roads is contained in "Logging
Roads and Protection of Water Quality",  EPA 910/9-75-008, Region X,
Environmental Protection Agency.  Additional information on features
and design of specific measures and management practices may be
obtained from other Federal agencies. State agencies,  and various
forestry associations and publications.

-------
                BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              CONSTRUCTION NONPOINT SOURCES
                     WATER POLLUTION              _
                                                              18
DRAFT
  ^ff\ 4 Q \3'
    Construction is a broad category covering the alteration and
development of land for a different use including the installation of
structures on the land. The types of projects within the category
generally have two common characteristics, namely; 0.) They involve
soil disturbance,  resulting in modification of the physical, chemical,
and biological properties,of the land; and (2) They are short-lived in the
sense that the "construction phase" closes when the development and
building activities are completed.  Storm waters should be controlled
for the life of the facilities to protect downstream areas.

                       Introduction

    This  guidance is intended to provide  information regarding the control
of pollution from nonpoint  source construction activities,  and to supplement
information regarding control of construction associated descharges
under the provisions of NPDES and Section 404(e) of the FWPCA.

    Construction activities can result in  the development of significant
sources of pollutants which may reach surface or ground waters.  About
one million acres of land are being disturbed for construction purposes
each year in the  United States.  Pollution resulting from these construction
areas can be catastrophic  in downstream areas,  particularly in small
drainages. This  statement is intended to provide guidance in the control
of construction nonpoint sources and for the selection of pollution prevention
or reduction measures that are useful in reaching water quality goals.

    Construction nonpoint  sources are the land development and building
projects  that result in the  runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants to
the surface and ground waters.  The runoff of pollutants generated by
the project is strongly dependent on climatic events such as rainfall or
snowmelt. In general,  the runoff is intermittent  and does not provide
a continuous discharge.   The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at the time of the  rainfall or snowmelt.
Both the  nature and amount of pollutants are also dependent on other
factors such as soil types, topography, project  characteristics, and the
number of people and equipment involved.

Description of Construction Activities

    There are many types  of projects that fall within the construction
category. They generally can be classified into the following sub-
categories:

    1.  Land Development  — Land development involves the construction
of housing subdivisions, shopping centers, schools, recreation  areas,
and related facilities.  The areal extent of the land affected is generally
large although a project may be completed in segments.  Topographic
slopes are usually gentle with cut and fill sections relatively minor.

-------
                               -2-
    2.  Transportation and Communication Networks -- Construction of
transportation and communication facilities involves disturbance of the
land principally in a linear direction.  Areas may be quite large but the
width of the disturbed areas is minor compared to their linear extent.
These facilities often are located in areas of high relief where slopes
may be steep and rugged. Climatic differences are extremely diverse
in many of these areas with torrential rains prevalent  in higher altitudes.

    3.  Water Resource Facilities —  Construction of water resource
facilities involves disturbing the ground surface for installation of dams,
aqueducts and their appurtenant structures.  Dams may be located in
relatively steep river valleys or  canyons,  or in areas of fairly low relief.
Aqueducts have a great linear extent and are generally located along
valley or foothill areas.   Climatic differences at these sites may be
extremely variable with intense rainfall occurring in mountain areas.

   Dams in higher topographic areas may be underlain by hard,  non-
erodible bedrock. Dams and aqueducts in lower areas  generally are
located in erodible soils and/or parent materials.

    4.  Other -- Construction of factories, major office buildings,
airports, power plants,  etc. is included in this subcategory. Except for
airports, the areal extent of these facilities is generally limited and
almost all require extensive subsurface excavation. They are generally
located in areas of fairly low relief with relatively low cut and fill slopes
involved.

Identification of Pollutants

    Sediment, resulting from erosion of disturbed soils on construction
sites,  is one of the principal pollutants.  It includes solid mineral and
organic materials which are transported by runoff water, wind, ice, or
the effect of gravity.  Chemical pollutants derived from construction
activities originate from inorganic and organic sources and occur in solid
form such as asphalt, boards, fibers, or metals; or in liquid form such
as paints, oils, glues, pesticides, and fertilizers.  Biological pollutants
include organisms resulting from soils, animal,  or human origins. They
may be bacteria, fungi,  or viruses. Excess storm water runoff can be a
severe cause of pollution. It results from changed conditions due to
construction activities.

    1.  Sediment -- Sediment exerts physical, chemical and biological
effects on the receiving stream and water bodies. Physical damage
resulting from sediment deposition includes: reduction of reservoir
storage capacity,  filling harbors  and navigation channels, increasing the
frequency of flooding and causing bank erosion,  increasing turbidity in

-------
                               -3-


water and reducing light penetration, increasing the cost of water
treatment, damaging fish life,  destroying and covering organisms on
the bottom of streams,  reducing the flowing speed and carrying capacity
of streams, and impairing operation of drainage ditches, culverts, and
bridges, altering the shape and direction of stream channels,  destroying
water recreational areas,  and imparting undesirable taste  to water.

    2.  Chemicals  --  The major categories of  chemical  pollutants
are: petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, synthetic materials,
metals, soil additives, construction chemicals, and miscellaneous wastes
from construction.

    Some petroleum products impart a persistent odor and  taste to water,
impairing its use  for drinking water and contact sports.   Many oils have
the ability to block the  transfer of  air from the  atmosphere into water,
resulting in the suffocation of aquatic plants, organisms, and fish. Some
petroleum products contain quantities of organo-metallic compounds
(nickel, vanadium, lead, iron,  arsenic) and other impurities which can
be toxic to fish and other organisms.

    The three most commonly  used pesticides  at construction sites  are
herbicides, insecticides, and rodenticides.  The unnecessary or improper
application of these pesticides may result in direct contamination  of water,
or indirect pollution by dirt which settles in surface waters,  or transport
off soil surfaces into water.

    Nitrogen and phosphorous are the major plant nutrients used for the
successful establishment of vegetation on disturbed soils of construction
sites.  Heavy use of commercial fertilizers can result in these materials
reaching water bodies to accelerate the eutrophication process.

    The construction industry utilizes many different types of synthetic
products.  These  include structural frames,  window panes, wall board,
paints,  and many  others.  Heavy duty construction materials  are synthesized
from nondegradable organic materials.  They are little affected by biological
or chemical degradation agents, and are usually designed to withstand the
most severe physical conditions.

    The concern over metal pollution of water bodies is associated mostly
with the heavy metals (mercury, lead,  zinc,  silver,  cadmium, arsenic,
copper, aluminum,  iron, etc. ). Metals are used extensively in construction
activities for structural frames, wiring, ducts,  pipes, beams, and many
other uses.  Construction vehicles, gasoline, paints, pesticides,  fungicides,
and construction chemicals are also potential sources of heavy metals pollutants,
When these latter materials are weathered, decomposed and disintegrated
by various agents, they ultimately form oxides and salts that can affect
aquatic organisms.

-------
                                -4-


    Soil additives are chemicals and materials that are applied to the soil
during construction activities in order to obtain desired soil characteristics.
Often construction  activities cover large areas  consisting of several
different types of soils.  The nature of soils is  dependent on the climatic,
topographic and geological conditions.  The type of soil additive applied
depends on the objectives of the construction activities.  Soils may vary from
one location to another in the amount of water they contain,  particle size
distribution (clays, silt, sand and gravel), water infiltration rate,  ability
to support heavy structures, and resistance to compaction by construction
equipment.  Soil additives are used to control the amount of moisture
absorbed by roadway surfaces,  to reduce the degree of shrinking and
expanding of clay soils in order to prevent structural damage of buildings
and air field runways, and to increase the firmness of soils.  Several
materials are used to obtain desired soil properties.   Commonly used
materials include lime,  fly ash, asphalt, phosphoric acid, salt, and
calcium chloride.   The soil additives  carried in runoff from construction
sites alter the quality of receiving waters.  However,  little work has been
conducted to show the net environmental effects of these  soil additives.

    Many other chemicals are used in construction for purposes such as:
pasting boards together, sealing cracks, surface treatment, solvents for
oils and paints,  and dyeing and cleaning.  The amounts of chemicals
leaving construction sites as pollutants have not been established.  Poor
construction activities that are liable to contaminate water resources include
the following practices: dumping of excess chemicals and wash water
into storm water sewers; indiscriminate discharging of undiluted or
unneutralized chemicals; disregard for proper handling procedures
resulting in major  or minor spills at the construction site; and leaking
storage containers  and construction equipment.

    Miscellaneous pollutants include concrete wash from concrete mixers,
acid and alkaline solutions from exposed soil or rock units high in  acid,
and alkaline-forming natural elements.  Cuts through coal beds have
resulted in the seepage of mine  acids into streams.  High lime areas
often increase the alkalinity of receiving waters.

    3.  Biological Materials — Biological pollutants from construction
include soil organisms and organisms of human and animal origin.  They
include bacteria, fungi, and viruses.  The majority of biological pollutants
are found in the topsoil layer where they can feed on dead plants, animals,
birds and other  organisms.

   The biological  pollutants resulting from construction activity indicate
that the greatest pollution potential are of animal and human origin. They
are more prevalent on  construction sites where improper sanitary
conditions exist.

-------
                                -5-


            Basis For Best Management-Practices Development

    Best Management Practices for construction are the most practical
and effective measure or combination of measures which, when applied
to the land development or building project, will prevent or reduce the
runoff of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.

    Since the amount of pollutant runoff from construction sites depends
on numerous variables such as the type of construction involved, the
quantity and intensity of rainfall, the soil characteristics, etc., it is
recognized that those particular types of control measures that will pre-
vent this runoff must be installed on the site.   The proper mix of control
measures must be established on site-specific basis.  Whether they are
properly installed and maintained must be checked by on-site inspection
as there is no way that effluent monitoring can accomplish this.
                     t
    Best Management Practices for construction activities consist of
measures which will prevent the movement of pollutants from construction
sites. While  sediment is the  principal pollutant resulting from earth-
disturbing construction activities, chemicals, hydrocarbons, solid
wastes, and other materials  must also be considered.

Description of  Preventive and Reduction Measures

    There are essentially three  basic measures for controlling the runoff
of sediment from construction sites.  They include: (L) preventing erosion
of exposed soil surfaces, (2) restricting the transport of eroded particles,
and (3) trapping sediments being transported.  Measures developed for
controlling movement of sediment and other materials by water generally
are also useful for controlling that generated by wind  action.

    Preventing erosion of exposed soil surfaces is achieved by protecting
these surfaces with such coverings as mulch; sheets of plastic* fiberglass
roving,  burlap, rock blankets, or jute netting; temporary growths of fast-
growing grasses; or sod blankets.  Mulch consists of hay, straw, wood
chips, bark,  or any other suitable protective  material.  Sheets of plastic
and netting materials are generally used on steep slopes where vegetation
is difficult to establish or erosion rapid.  Seeding of temporary fast-
growing grasses is most desirable when final grading cannot be done until
a later date and climatic conditions permit.  Sod often is used as a covering
in critical areas susceptible  to erosion.

    Limiting the areal extent of soils disturbed at any one time is a usable
mechanism for minimizing erosion.  It can be achieved by planning and
carrying out the job so that as work progresses existing vegetation is removed
only on  that area of soil surface essential to immediate work activities.
Construction activities are completed on each exposed area  and revegetation
accomplished as rapidly as feasible.

-------
                               -6-
    Solid wastes should be collected at the site and removed for
disposal in authorized disposal areas. Frequent garbage removal
is essential.  Any useful materials can be salvaged or recycled.
Often,  borrow pits, or excavations can be filled with inert solid
wastes.

    Runoff of construction chemicals resulting from  paints, cleaning
solvents, concrete curing compounds, and petroleum products, can
be largely restricted by sediment control measures  as many of these
materials are carried by sediment particles.  Good "housekeeping"
procedures such as proper disposal of empty containers,  prompt
cleanup of accidental spills, and neutralization or deactivation of
excess chemicals and wash waters should minimize  runoff of the
remaining materials.

Information Sources

    Nonpoint source pollution control  practices discussed above in
summary form are described in more detail in the following
publications ?

    "Processes, Procedures,  and Methods to  Control Pollution
    Resulting From All Construction Activity" EPA  430/9-73-007,
    October 1973

    "Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control,
    Construction Activities" EPA 430/9-73-016, July 1973

    "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
    Implementation" EPA R2-72-015,  August 1972

    Additional data regarding design of structures, specifications for
vegetative practices,  instructions for installation of surface pro-
tective coverings, and other useful measures  are available in
numerous published standards and specifications, manuals, hand-
books, or guides.  They are  generally prepared and issued in local
areas by States, Counties, or Conservation Districts,  with the
assistance of the U. S.  Soil Conservation Service.

-------
                 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
              AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
                       WATER POLLUTION
    Agricultural nonpoint sources are a broad category covering all crop
and animal production activities. Crop production includes both
irrigated and non-irrigated production,  such as row crops, close
grown crops, orchards  and vineyards, and fallow land temporarily
out of production.  Animal production includes such systems as pasture
and rangeland grazing,  semiconfined feeding and grazing,  and con-
centrated animal feeding operations.

                        Introduction

    This guidance is intended to provide information regarding the
control  of pollution from a agricultural nonpoint sources, and to
supplement information regarding the control of agricultural discharges
regulated under the requirements of NPDES.  Agricultural production
activities provides, on a national scale,  significant sources of pollutants
which reach both surface and ground waters. These may be either
point sources or nonpoint sources,  or combinations of the two.

               Description of Agricultural Activities

    Agricultural nonpoint sources are the crop and animal  production
systems that result in diffuse runoff, seepage, or percolation of
pollutants to the surface and ground waters.  There are a number of
different activities within each of the systems that may cause water
pollution.  The runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants generated
by the activities are strongly dependent on climatic events such as rain-
fall and snowmelt. In general,  they are intermittent and do not represent
a continuous discharge.  The nature of the pollutants depends on the
particular activities underway at the time of the climatic events. Both
the nature and amount of pollutants are also dependent on other factors
such as soil types,  topography, crop and animal types, and crop and
animal production methods.

Crop Production

    There are five general categories of activities associated with crop
production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source pollution:

    1.  The disturbance  of the soil by tillage or compaction by
machinery.

    2.  The alteration of natural vegetative patterns by substituting
crop plants for natural vegetation or leaving the soil without vegetative
cover.

-------
                               -2-

    3.  The increase in available nutrients, over the quantity available
through natural cycles, by the application of fertilizers.

    4.  The introduction of chemical compounds not found in significant
quantities under natural conditions such as by the application of
pesticides.

    5.  The application of surface or ground waters for the purpose of
irrigating crops.

Animal Production
    There are three general categories of activities associated with
animal production which can produce the potential for nonpoint source
pollution:

    1.  Concentration of animals (and their wastes) in a particular
location for an extended period of time such as at feeding areas.

    2.  Overgrazing of range and pasture  lands that removes vegetative
cover from the land.

    3.  Concentration of animals instreams or along stream banks
in such numbers as to cause disturbance of the stream bottoms or banks,
or result in direct deposit of manure into streams.

                   Identification of Pollutants
    Six general types of nonpoint source pollutants that may result from
activities associated with agricultural production systems are:

    1.  Sediment: Sediments,  by volume,  are the most serious
pollutants resulting from agricultural production. They include prin-
cipally mineral fragments resulting from the erosion of soils but may
also include crop debris and animal wastes.  Sediments can smother
organisms in water bodies by forming bottom blankets, interfere with
the photosynthetic processes by reducing  light penetration, and act as
carriers of nutrients and pesticides. Deposits also may fill reservoirs
and hinder navigation.

    2.  Nutrients:  Nutrients,  above the natural background levels of an
area may result from fertilizer applications and animal wastes. Soluble
nutrients may reach surface and ground water through runoff, seepage,
and percolation. Ions may be adsorbed on soil particles and reach surface
water through sedimentation processes. Nutrients may also reach surface
water by direct washoff of animal wastes  and recently applied fertilizer.

-------
                              -3-
Excessive nutrients can lead to imbalance in the natural nutrient cycles
and cause eutrophication. In some cases, excessive nutrients can be
a health hazard.

    3.  Pesticides: Pesticides which are applied in the agricultural
production unit may be insoluble or soluble.  The entrance of
pesticides into the surface or ground waters follows approximately
the same patterns as nutrients. Pesticides may cause acute
toxicity problems in the water bodies or insidious toxicity problems
through the entire food chain.

    4.  Organic Materials: Animal wastes and crop debris are the
principal organic pollutants that result from agricultural production.
They may reach surface waters through direct washoff,
or, in their soluble form,  reach both surface and ground waters
through runoff, seepage or percolation. The organic materials place
an oxygen demand on the receiving waters during their decomposition.
In addition, they may lead to other problems such as tastes,  odors,
color,  and nutrient enrichment.

    5.  Salinity (TDS): The necessity of leaching to remove,  or prevent
the damaging accumulation of salts in the root zone of plants has the
potential of inducing subsequent quality problems in both surface and
ground waters if agricultural waters are not properly managed. Percol-
ating water may reach ground water through further deep percolation,
or move laterally into surface water bodies.  The problem becomes
more pronounced when the applied irrigation water  initially contains
dissolved solids which will become more concentrated as the
plants remove water for their use. Severity of pollution depends not
only on the nature of the receiving waters but also on the nature of
the uses of the receiving waters.

    6.  Microorganisms:  Any potential disease-causing micro-
organisms (pathogens) in water are a matter of concern to the health
and safety of the water users. Animal wastes are the principal source
of pathogenic microorganisms resulting from agricultural production.
Pathogens reach the water bodies through the same routings as
the animal wastes.
         •*.
        Basis For Best Management Practices Development

    Best Management  Practices for agricultural production are the
most practical and effective measure or combination of measures,  which
when applied to the agricultural management unit, will prevent or reduce
the generation of pollutants to a level compatible with water quality goals.
They often enhance the productivity of the soil as well as control pollution.

-------
                               -4-
    Because of the variability in production methods, crops and
animals,  soil types, topography, climate, etc.,  the BMP for any specific
agricultural management unit or area will vary.  The selection of Best
Management Practices for a particular agricultural management unit or
area is a complex process. Any measure or combination of measures
applied to an agricultural management unit or area which will achieve
water quality goals is  a potential BMP. However, the measures  are •
generally the type that are incorporated into a soil and water con-
servation plan as developed by a landowner or land user, with the
assistance of a conservation district and/or the Soil Conservation Service,
Extension Service, Forest Service,  and others.

    The principal emphasis should be placed on measures that will
prevent or control the runoff, seepage or percolation of pollutants
from crop or animal production management units. Preventive measures
must be fully integrated into the total production management
system of the  agricultural management units. In essence, the soils,
nutrients and pesticides should be kept  on the land where they perform
their intended agricultural function.

    Because of the widespread nature of sediment runoff, erosion control
measures should be a  principal means of controlling pollution from
each agricultural management unit.  Control of erosion not only will prevent
soils from leaving the land, but also will materially reduce the nutrients
and pesticides that reach the nation's waters adsorbed to soil particles.
Where necessary, to further prevent or reduce the entrance of sediments
into water bodies, supplemental measures such as debris and sediment
retention basins should be utilized.

    In cases where excess amounts of nutrients,  pesticides and animal wastes
cause particular problems in surface or ground waters, additional control
measures may be necessary. These measures might relate, for example,
to the application (timing and amount) of fertilizers and pesticides,  the
prevention of the concentration of animals,  and the collection and adequate
disposal of the animal wastes.   Salinity buildup resulting from irrigation
must be analyzed in terms of the particular problem with subsequent develop-
ment of appropriate measures.

           Description of Prevention and Reduction Measures

    Measures which can be applied to an agricultural management unit
to prevent or reduce pollutants from reaching surface or ground  waters
can be generally classified into  four categories.  They  are: (1) structural
measures, (2) conservation cropping systems and animal management
systems,  (3) quantitative and qualitative management of cropping system
inputs,  (4) vegetative measures.

-------
                               -5-
    Structural measures generally involve some physical method designed
to reduce erosion or prevent sediment runoff.  They include such things
as barriers applied at the source such as terraces, conveyance systems
to enhance non-erodable flows such as waterways and drop structures,
and catchment systems  for the final clarification such as debris basins.
Off-stream watering points, controlled access watering points at water
bodies,  diversions around feeding areas, and manure trapping basins
are considered to be structural measures.

    Cropping systems and animal management systems involve the spacial
and sequential arrangement of crop plant and animal pop-
ulations. The arrangement of crops on a field such as strip cropping,
crop rotation such as sod-forming grass rotation systems, and tillage
methods such as minimum tillage can significantly reduce pollutant trans-
port.  Control of animal populations so as to prevent overgrazing or the
concentration of animals in particular  locations can reduce erosion,
sediment runoff, and the runoff of concentrated animal wastes.

    Inputs into cropping systems which are not efficiently utilized can
become potential pollutants. Nutrient and pesticide applications should
be matched to the immediate needs of the agricultural production
systems. The timing of the applications should take into consideration
external hydrologic forces.  The efficient use of irrigation water can
materially reduce the salinity buildup problems associated with runoff,
seepage, and percolation of the water not utilized by the plants.

    Vegetative covering on bare,  or exposed soils is any crop planted
solely to prevent, or control erosion and sediment runoff.  It  can be
used during the winter months, between regular crops during  the growing
season, or where denuded areas have resulted from overgrazing or
some other activity.  The vegetative cover protects the bare ground
from the erosive energy of falling rain and flowing runoff water and filters
out sediment actually being transported in the runoff water leaving the site.

                     Information Sources

    The prevention and reduction measures outlined in the foregoing are
generally described in "Methods and Practices for Controlling Water
Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint Sources, " EPA-430/9-73-015.  Oct 1973.
Data on control of dust is presented in "Investigation of Fugitive Dust,
Volume 1: Sources, Emissions, and Control" EPA-450/3-74-036a
June, 1974, Specific information on the application of the measures for
agricultural nonpoint sources and water quality management is contained in
"Control of Water  Pollution from.Cropland, Volume I " USDA, ARS
and EPA, ORD. November 1975.  "Interim Report on Loading Functions
For Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources" EPA; ORD.

-------
                                -6-
November,  1975 provides data for assessing the problem.  Information
on specific aspects of agricultural nonpoint  source pollutants and their
control can be found in research reports of  EPA,  USDA, and other Federal
agencies. State and local agencies,  colleges and universities,  and agricultural
trade associations and in grazing and range  management documents by these
groups.

    Design information on various conservation methods can be
obtained from Soil Conservation Service handbooks.  Specific infor-
mation on particular locations can be obtained from  SCS Field  Offices,
the Extension Service, soil and water conservation district offices,  and
other informed agencies and groups.
                                           * U. 8. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 622-389/383

-------