RELATIONSHIP OF LEVEL B PLANNING AND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WATER PLANNING DIVISION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 NOVEMBER 1976 ------- EPA REVIEW NOTICE This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents, conclusions or reconuendations of the report necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trademarks or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ------- RELATIONSHIP OF LEVEL B PLANNING PROCESSES AND PLANS TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING WATER PLANNING DIVISION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Contract No. 68-01-1961 George Fleming, Project Officer September 1976 ------- TECHNICAL REPORT DATA (Please read Jp tsu tiong on the reverse before completing) 1. REPORT NO. 2. 3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSIOPNO. 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE RELATIONSHIP OF LEVEL B PLANNING PROCESSES AND Pr. ANs TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING 5. REPORT DATE September 1976, date submitted 6. PERFORMING ORGAt .LIZATION CODE 7. AUTHOR(S) Banks, H.O; N.J. Owen; N.E. Schwarz Wendell Associates I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO. . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS Harvey 0. Banks, Consulting Engineer, Inc. #3 Kittie Lane Belmont, CA 94002 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO. 11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO. 68—01—1961 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Water Planning Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street Washington, DC 20460 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED Final Report 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES lb. Ab I MACI The study reported was commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and improve relationships between planning conducted pursuant to Sec- tions 208 and 209 (Level B) of PL 92—500. Case studies were conducted in the Central Snake Basin, Idaho, and Monongahela River Basin Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Mary- land, where both Level B and 208 programs are underway. The case studies revealed neither program effectively used information developed in the other. Level B plans were found to have special value in interstate aspects of water quality; in assessipg effects on quality of projected water uses; and of basinwide water resource manage- ment measures. Level B and 208 planners must understand the relationship of the two planning processes. The WRC and the EPA must require full consideration of the other’ planning prograxqs. The report recommends that the WRC promulgate regulations ex- plicitly identifying water quality management elements in Level B plans; modify pre- sent constraints on Level B planning to allow collection of new data where necessary to give adequate consideration to quality; and increase efforts to resolve interstate problems. The report recommends that the EPA modify regulations for 208 planning to require consideration of Level B plans and inclusion of personnel with water resource planning expertise on 208 planning staffs. Both EPA and WRC should assure full under- standing in. planning of the interdependences of water quality management with other asnects of water and rel - d - - — L b UL m n g m nr 7. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS I. DESCRIPTORS b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group Planning Regional planning River basin River basin development Water quality Water resource Planning Regional planning Water quality management River basin development )50l Administra- tion and management . .302 Civil Engi- neering 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Reporitf 21. No. OF PAGES 163 20. SECURITY CLASS (Thi. ,page) 22. PRICE EPA Form 2220-1 p.73) ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1-1 Purpose and Scope of Study 1-6 Conduct of the Study 1—7 References Chapter 1 1—10 CHAPTER 2 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1 conclusions 2—2 General 2—2 Central Snake Case Study 2-3 Monongahela Case Study 2-4 Level B Planning 2—5 Water Quality Management Planning 2—7 Summary Conclusions 2—7 ReconmiendationS 2—11 Central Snake Case Study 2—11 Monongahela River Basin 2-12 Water Resources Council 2—13 Environmental Protection Agency 2-15 General 2—15 CHAPTER 3 - WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT/LEVEL B 3-1 Water Quality Management Planning 3—1 Background 3—1 Planning Objectives Plan Content Coordination with Other Planning Programs 3—7 Use of Level B Plans 3—13 Implementation 3-15 Plan content Requirements 3—15 Regional or River Basin Planning, Level B 3-16 Legislative History of Sec. 209, PL 92—500 3- 16 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont ‘d) Page Level B Planning Process and Plans 3-19 Comparison of Water Quality Management Planning and Level B Planning Programs 3-27 Entities Involved 3-28 Planning and Implementation Processe 3-31 Types and Detail of Study Products 3-33 Urban Studies Program, Corps of Engineers 3-34 State, Regional and Local Water Plans 3-36 Literature I eview 3-36 References Chapter 3 3-38 CHAPTER 4 - CASE STUDIES 4-1 Central Snake River Basin 4—3 overview 4-3 Description of the Case Study Area 4-3 Description of the Central Snake Level B Study 4-6 Description of Water Quality Management Planning Programs 4-10 Interpretations of Interrelationships Between the State’s Continuing PLanning Process, Level B and Urban Studies Planning Programs 4-15 Coordination Arrangements 4-22 Level B Inputs to Water Quality Management Planning 4-23 Implementation of Plans 4-24 Monongahela River Basin 4-25 Level B Plan 4-27 SillilnarY Pittsburgh 208 Area Planning 4-40 Pennsylvania - Water Quality Management Planning 4-43 Pennsylvania - State Water Plan (SWP) 4-47 West Virginia 4-50 Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 4-52 Other Agency Staff Comments 4-53 References Chapter 4 CHAPTER 5 - PLAN INTERRELATIONSHIPS .5-1 Data Base ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d) Page Air Quality 53 Water Quality Standards 5-3 Demographic and Economic Projections 5-4 Land Use Hydrologic and Hydraulic Effects 5-4 Water Rights 5—6 Social Impacts 5—7 Energy Impacts 5-7 Planning Under Uncertainty 5-8 summary 5—8 APPENDIX A - DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL CASE STUDIES A-i Yakima River Basin A—2 Hawaii (statewide) A—2 Maumee River Basin A2 Minneapolis-St Paul (Lower Minnesota and Upper Mississippi Rivers A3 Central Snake River Basin.. .. Monongahela River Basin A4 summary A—4 APPENDIX B - COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES B-i LIST OF TABLES 1. COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS REQUIRED UNDER 40 CFR 131 WITH POSSIBLE OUTPUT OF LEVEL B STUDY 3-8 ------- PREFACE Sections 208 and 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92—500), and the implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 330 and 131) mandate areawide and statewide approaches to water quality management planning. Plans prepared pursuant to these man- dates are to emphasize implementation of waste treatment works and regu- latory and control programs to attain the specific statutory objectives. The nationwide coverage of the Sec. 208 program, its broad consideration of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, and the emphasis on implementation make it one of the most important sections of PL 92-500. Full realization of the objectives of Sec. 208 and other water quality management programs requires comprehensive consideration of related pro- grams for water and land resource management to assure complementaritY of objectives as well as efficiency in planning and implementation. Fed- eral and federally assisted planning programs dealing with water and re- lated land resource development, use and management are coordinated through the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) of which the u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a member (Public Law 89-80, as amended). Plan- ninq carried out under the Council’s aegis includes regional or river basin planning (Level B). The potential interrelationships between Level B plan- ning and areawide and statewide water quality management planning have not been adequately defined previously. Exposition of the more significant of these interrelationships is one of the objectives of this report. This report describes results of a study commissioned by EPA to identify and describe relationships which should exist between Level B and water quality management planning processes and plans. it addresses the divergencies presently existing between the programs and how the two planning efforts could be made more mutually supportive and useful to one another. The study, conducted by Harvey 0. Banks, Consulting Engineer, Inc., (Contract 68—01—1961), was initiated on January 15, 1976. Joint EPA—WRC management of the study was provided by a Project Advisory Committee. Other members of the study team were: H. James Owen, Mitchell Wendell, and Harry E. Schwarz. Field investigations were conducted of two case study areas involving both Level B planning and areawide water quality management planning, the Central Snake River Basin in Idaho and Monongahela River Basin which in- cludes parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland. These areas were approved by the Project Advisory Committee and EPA Project Officer on recommendation by the Contractor. Staff members of federal, state and local agencies in each case study area providing special assistance for the case studies include the following: 1 ------- Central Snake Case Study Area Lawrence V. Armacost, chief, Basin and Urban Studies Section, Wa].la Walla District, Corps of Engineers; Lynn McKee, Idaho Operations Office, U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency; E.J. Gullidge, Planning Director, Pacific Northwest River Basins commission; Warren Reynolds, State Study Team Leader, Idaho Department of Water Resources; Donel Lane, chairman, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission; Henry Stuart, Assistant Study Manager, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission; C. Stephen Alired, Administrator,Planning Division, Idaho Department of Water Resources; James Runsvold, Water Quality Bureau, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Robert F. Minter, 208 Program Manager, Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee; Peter Gowen, Environmental Planner, Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee; David Fortier, Engineer, Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee; Robert Wise, thief, Bureau of Planning, Division of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordination, Office of the Governor, Idaho. Monongahe].a Case Study Area Claude A. Rays, Executive Director, Ohio River Basin Com- mission; Stephen Thrasher, Assistant Director, Planning, Ohio River Basin Commission; George White, Director, Monongahela Level B Study, Ohio River Basin CommIssion; 11 ------- E. Anthony Joering, Director, Ohio River Main Stem Level B Study, Ohio River Basin Commission; Leo Weaver, Executive Director, Ohio River Valley Water Sani- tation Commission; Charles R. Ownbey, Ohio River Basin Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency; Edward V. Geismar, Basin Commission Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III; Dale Wismer, Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III; Robert A. LaMacchia, Administrator, 208/COWAMP Progra!n South- western Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission; James DeAnglis, Chief, Advance Planning, Southwestern Pennsyl— vani.a Regional Planning Commission; Walter Lyon, chief, Bureau of Water Quality Management,Depart- ment of Environmental Resources, State of Pennsylvania; Richard H. Boardman, Chief, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Department of Environmental Resources, State of Pennsylvania; William M. Frazier, Bureau of Resources Programming, Department of Environmental Resources, State of Pennsylvania; John E. McSparran, Bureau of Resources Programming, Department of Environmental Resources, State of Pennsylvania; Teh Shee Lee, Bureau of Resources Programming, Department of Environmental Resources, State of Pennsylvania; Dr. Brooks F. McCabe, Jr., Research Analyst and Assistant for Planning, Office of Federal—State Relations, Resource Development Support Division, Office of the Governor, State of West Virginia; James Lloyd Harris, Environmental Specialist, Office of Federal— State Relations, Resource Development Support Division, Of fic of the Governor, State of West Virginia; Edward Y. Long, Land Use Specialist, Office of Federal—State Relations, Resource Development Support Division, Office of the Governor, State of West Virginia; 111 ------- Earl P. Bisher, Chief, Planning Branch, Division of Water Re- sources, Department of Natural Resources, State of West Virginia; James Adkins, Planner 1, Water Resource Planning, Division of Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, State of West Virginia; Col. Janairo, District Engineer, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army; James Purdy, Chief, Environmental Planning Section, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army; Michael Koryak, Hydrology Branch, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army; James Mershimer, Urban Studies Unit, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army; F. De? rio, Formulation Section, Pittsburgh District, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. The assistance given by these individuals and numerous others is greatly appreciated. Mr. George Fleming was Project Officer for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Albert Erickson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Wayne Haas, U.S. Water Resources Council, served as members of the Project Advisory Committee. Their efforts in furnishing information and assistance were extremely helpful and are deeply appreciated. iv ------- CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Nation’s extensive surface and underground water resource con- stitutes one of its major economic and environmental assets. Management of this resource for multiple purposes is an important activIty at all governmental levels and in the private sector. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, Public Law 89—80, established the U.S. Water Re- sources Council (WRC) to encourage the conservation, development and utilization of the Nationts water and related land resources on a compre- hensive basis through coordinated planning by the Federal Government, States, local governments and private enterprise. among its other duties, WRC is directed to: Maintain a continuing study of the relation of regional or river basin plans and- programs to the requirements of larger regions of the Nation and of the adequacy of ad- ministrative and statutory means for the coordination of the water and related land resources policies and programs of the several Federal agencies; it shall appraise the adequacy of existing and proposed policies and programs to meet such requirements; and it shall make recommendations to the President with respect to Federal policies and pro- grams [ 1, Sec. l02(b)J. The Water Resources Planning Act provided for formation of river basin commissions. These commissions are directed to [ 1, Sec. 201(b)]: (1) serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovernmental plans for the development of water and related land re- sources in its area, river basin, or group of river basins; (2) prepare and keep up to date, to the extent practicable, a comprehensive, coordinated, joint plan for Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovernmental development of water and related resources: provided, that the plan shall include an evaluation of all reasonable alternative means of achiev- ing optimum development of water and related land resources of the basin or basins, and it may be prepared in stages, including recoimnendations with respect to individual pro- jects; I-il ------- (3) recommend long-range schedules of priorities for the collection and analysis of basic data and for the investi- gations, planning, and construction of projects; and (4) foster and undertake such studies of water and related land resources problems in its area, river basin; or group of river basins as are necessary in the preparation of the plan described in clause (2) of this subsection. Six river basin commissions are presently organized and operating: New England River Basins Commissions; Ohio River Basin Commission; Great Lakes Basin Commission; Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission; Missouri River Basin Commission; Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission. In an effort to organize the large number of planning efforts under- way, WRC has specificed three levels of planning (2) including: Level A: Framework Studies and Assessments; Level B: Regional or River Basin Plans; and Level C. Implementation Studies. Definitions of these levels of study are provided by W1 ’s Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources (3) promul- gated pursuant to Section 103 of the Water Resources Planning Act (1). Section I.C. of the Standards states: Framework studies and assessments are the evaluation or appraisal on a broad basis of the needs and desires of people for the conservation, development and utilization of water and land resources and will identify regions or basins with complex problems which require more detailed investigations arid analysis and may recommend specific implementation plans and programs in areas not requiring further study. They will consider Federal, State, and local means and will ecinsider both national economic development and environmental quality objectives. 1—2 ------- Regional or river basin plans are reconnaissance—level evaluation of water and land resources for a selected area. They are prepared to resolve complex long—range problems identified by framework studies and assess— rnents and will vary widely in scope and detail; will involve Federal, State, and local interests in plan formulation; and will identify and recommend action plans and programs to be pursued by individual Federal, State, and local entities. They will consider both national economic development and environmental qual- ity objectives. Implementation studies are program or project feasibility studies generally undertaken by a single Federal, State or local entity for th purpose of authorization or develop- ment of plan implementation. These studies are conducted to implement findings, conclusions, and recommendations of framework studies and assessments and regional or river basin studies which are found to be needed in the next 10 to 15 years. As with framework studies and regional or river basin plans, they will consider both national economic development and environmental quality objectives. At the present time, Level A studies have been completed or are approaching completion for most areas of the Nation. Numerous Level C studies are underway by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCE), Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), Soil Conservation (SCS) and other agencies. Section 209 of Public Law 92—500 states (4): (a) The President, acting through the Water Resources Council, shall, as soon as practicable, prepare a Level B plan under the Water Resources Planning Act for ll basins in the United States. All such plans shall be completed not later than January 1, 1980, except that priority in the preparation of such plans shall be given to those basins and portions thereof which are within areas designated under paragraph (2), and (4) of sub- section (a) of section 208 of this Act. (b) The President, acting through the Water Resources Council, shall report annually to Congress on progress being made in carrying out this section. The first such report shall be submitted not later than January 31, 1973. (c) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section not to exceed $200,000,000. 1—3 ------- Congress clearly intended that Level B planning processes and plans complement water quality management planning. Level B studies are designed to result in reconnaissance level plans for water and related land resources of selected regions or river basins. They are to resolve complex near-term and mid—term problems identified in Level A (or their precursor Type 1) studies. Level B studies generally are directed toward solving problems requiring an interdisciplinary approach. The complexity of such problems may require additional planning for final solution. The Water Resources Council has defined a “New Approach” to Level B planning (5) emphasizing strong central management and centralized funding of studies, limitation of studies to two years, and use of judgmental planning. Proposed Guidelines for Level B planning using the “New Approach” have been prepared for field evaluation (6). A Level B study is intended by WRC to provide an important step in an orderly sequence of water and related land resources planning and management activities for a particular region or river basin. As multi— agency planning efforts, Level B studies are designed to provide a forum for the incorporation and reconciliation of plans and objectives related to specific functions and specific areas. WRC proposed Guidelines state the intended relationship of Level B studies to other studies (6, II.C.): Level B planning is a means to resolve critical near term (next 5 years) mid-term (15-25 years) issues and problems identified primarily in Level A studies. This requires integration of problems associated with water quality, water supply, flood damage reduction, and other relevant water and related land resource programs, as well as institutional coordination at all governmental and private levels. The process requires the structuring of alternative strategies as an aid to decision—makers in arriving at agreement on implementation. Whenever prac- tical, Level B planning precedes project-type planning (Level C) and major cormnitment of substantial funds for program implementation. Level B studies help place water and land resources needs and problems into proper perspective and provide a basis for the orderly development of coordinated implementation plans for resource conservation, preservation, management and development. The Level B planning process identifies the various contributions to national economic developnent (NED) and environmental quality (EQ) objectives. It also provides decision—makers with alternative plans supported by information on tradeoffs and choices in areas where 1—4 ------- significant conflicts in use and management of natural resources exist. Thus, management strategies integrating the appropriate natural resources programs, and considering institutional and other policy issues, are selected to best reflect the overall priorities and preferences of the public. The integration should be two-fold: First, other studies can provide input (data, problem identification, alterna- tives etc.) to the Level B and assist in implementing Level B recotiunendations. Second, the Level B provides a broader perspective upon which other studies and programs can build.-—— Heavy reliance hasbeen placed by the Congress and U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA) on planning to provide the basis for achieving the goals and objectives of Public Law 92-500, namely, to achieve fishable, swimmable waters wherever attainable by 1983 and elimination of discharge of pollutants to navigable waters by 1935. Two major water quality management planning programs, areawide and statewide pursuant to Sec. 208 and Sec. 303(e), respectively, and facilities planning under Sec. 201 of the Act, are authorized. EPA has entered into agreements with other federal agen .’ es with resource planning programs——Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce and Bureau of Land Management for exaxnp1€ —for coordination of the related planning programs. EPA and WRC ‘ e yet to work out arrangements for coordination of their respecti planning programs although there is recognition of the need. In some respects bilateral agreements are analogous to the planning procedures developed by Federal agencies in accordance with Section 1.D. of the Standards (3). The procedures are to provii e f r consistency in the application of the Standards and are reviewed by the Water Resources Council prior to promulgation by the agency. The bilateral agreements also strive to provide for coordination of the planning prccesses. It is possible that the mechanism set forth in Section l.D. of the Standards to coordinate and attain consistency in the planning process might be used rather than multi—bilateral agreements. Regulations implementing the continuing planning process have been promulgated by EPA including those pertaining to grants to states and designated areawide planning agencies (7), policies and procedures for the state continuing planning process (8), and requirements for preparation of water quality management plans (9). EPA has supplemented the regulations with both guidelines for planning (10) and a handbook concerning the con- tinuing planning process (11). These guidelines were developed prior to enactment of the amendment of Public Law 89-80 which designated EPA as a member of WRC. The guidelines, therefore, were not reviewed by the Council for consistency with WRC’s Principles and Standards. Whether there will be a subsequent review has not been determined. Planning pursuant to Section 208 is in its initial stages.. No initial plans have yet been submitted to EPA for those areas first designated for I—5 ------- planning by local agencies. For non—designated areas, few states have yet made significant progress toward meeting the requirements of EPA regu- lations (8,9). However, funds are already committed to this latter activity and a vastly increased level of effort is expected. Difficulties have been experienced in integrating water quality management consideration——especially non-point source control problems—— and other aspects of water resource planning and management, which are neither unusual or unexpected. A major problem is the dispersion of responsibilities for water and related land resources planning and manage- ment among several agencies at both Federal and State levels, each acting under different statutory authority. Similar problems have been encountered with respect to recreation, protection and propagation of fish and wild- life, arid other functions. However, the large public and private invest- ments being made for water quality management purposes and the mandated achievement of clean water goals in the future wherever attainable, have made the problem more obvious and the need for resolution more urgent. Direction for coordinating the several water resource programs has been lacking in Congressional program authorizations. These authorizations have not reflected consideration of the interrelationships of the plan- ning processes involved, objectives and nature of the resultant plans and programs, or of the differing procedures and levels for the decisions necessary for implementation. PurpoSe and Scope of Study This study was undertaken to evaluate current perceptions, interactions and coordination between Level B planning and water quality management planning programs, both as expressed in the several relevant statutes, regu- lations and guid 1.ines, and as practiced, and to recommend actions that would result in improve iients in conduct of the programs. The findings and recom mendations resulting from the study are intended to be useful to those now engaged in Level B and water quality management planning, and to EPA and WRC in guiding future planning. The study included the following: o Survey of available information on Level B planning under the Water Resources Planning Act (1) and on water quality management planning under PL 92-500, (4) and implementing regulations (8,9) and guide- lines (6,10,11); o Conduct of two case studies including both water quality management and Level B planning and their analysis with respect to: a) usefulness of Level B planning processes and plans to areawide and statewide water quality management planning processes and plans; 1—6 ------- b) divergence of actual Level B planning pro- cesses and plans from the requirements of the relevant regulations and guidelines and the causes of such divergence; and c) possible strategies for overcoming weaknesses in present processes for relating Level B planning and water quality management plan- fling; the preparation of substantive recommendations such as: a) interrelationships which should exist between Level B planning processes and plans and those for water quality management; b) potential utility of Level B planning products for water quality management planning particu- larly for the development of water quality management plans which will fulfill EPA re- quirements; c) modifications to Level X and water quality management planning processes and products which would facilitate water quality manage- ment planning in accord with Sec. 208 of PL 92-500, and which would provide for greater water quality input to Level B plan- ning; d) water quality management planning procedures that would take maximum advantage of comple- ted Level B plans or Level B planning in process; and e) institutional, financial and other implica- tions of the coordination of Level B plan- fling with water quality management planning. Conduct of the Study The investigation was approached through five related tasks including: o Detailed study design; o Review and analysis of relevant statutes, regulations, guidelines, reports and other documents and literature; Conduct of case study investigations; ------- o Analysis of the case studies; and o Preparation of recommendations and reports. During the detailed study design period, criteria were established for selecting the case studies and information was collected concerning all candidate Level B planning activities. Six potentially useful case studies were considered by the project Officer, Project Advisory Committee and contractor (Appendix A). The Central Snake and Monongahela Level B planning programs were selected for investigation. Review and analysis of the statutes, regulations, guidelines, reports and other documents and literature was largely completed prior to beginning the case studies. Later in the study, some further review and analysis of literature was undertaken to investigate particular points which arose during analysis of the case studies. The initial comparison of regulations and guidelines for Level B and water quality management planning was suc- cessively refined as continuing project study provided additional infor— ination and insights on important points. Conduct and analysis of the case studies emphasized the planning processes as well as the plans which were in varying stages of completion. Preparation for each of the case studies included review of the extensive information available concerning the areas and the studies underway in each. This varied in each case but generally included correspondence, Type I and other prior studies, and documentation of the Level B,208 and other studies underway. Visits were made to each of the case study areas to interview repre- sentatives of agencies conducting the principal studies underway in each area. Level B and 208 study managers, representatives of state water re- sources and water quality control agencies, staff members of EPA and other federal agencies, and representatives of river basin coimnissions were interviewed. Following on—site visits, brief analyses of the findings in each case study were presented to the Project Officer and Project Advisory Committee. Each case study was then analyzed in detail with respect to: o Interrelationships and coordination, or lack thereof between Level B planning and water quality management planning; o Beneficial mechanisms for coordination; o Impediments to coordination, including attitudes; and o Values of Level B planning to the water quality manage- ment planning in progress or to be undertaken. 1—8 ------- Recommendations have been based upon the information gained from review of the literature, analysis of findings of the case studies, and experience of the investigators. The recommendations include some perti- nent to planning organizations in the case study areas and some directed to the Water Resources Council and Environmental Protection Agency. The latter are of general application to all organizations undertaking Level B or water quality management planning. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in chapter 2. The water quality management and Level B planning programs are described and compared in Chapter 3. The two case studies are discussed in Chapter 4. Certain interrelationships between water quality management and overall water resource management that should be taken into account in planning are briefly discussed in chapter 5. A list of references is given at the end of Chapters Three and Four. Numbers in parentheses in the text refer to the numbers in the list. 1—9 ------- CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Congress. Water Rescnlrces Planning Act . Public Law 89-80, 89th Congress. July 22, 1965. 2. U.S. Water Resources Council. WaterResourCeS Council Policy State- ment No. 1, water and Related Land Resources Planning . Washington, D.C. July 22, 1970. 3. Principles and Standards forPlanning Water and Related Land Re— sources . 38 FR 24778. 4. U.s. Congress. Federa1 Water Pollution Control Act, as amended , Public Law 92—500, 92nd Congress. October 18, 1972. 5. U.S. Water Resources Council. Second Annual Report to the Congress of the United States on Level B (Section 209) Planning . Washing- ton, D.C., 1974. 6. U.S. Water Resources Council. Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning (Level B) ; Proposed for Field evaluation, subject to revision. Washington, D.C., March 1976. 7. Grants to State and Designated Areawide Planning Agencies—Conditions, Policies and Procedures , 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart A, Section 35.200 through 35.240 (40 FR 55321). November 28, 1975. 8. Policies and Procedures for Continuing Planning Process , 40 CFR Part 130 (40 FR 55334). November 28, 1975. 9. Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans , 40 CFR Part 131 (40 FR 55343). November 28, 1975. 1.0. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning . Washington, D.C.,, August, 1975. ii. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Continuing Planning Process Handbook . Washington, D.C., December 1975. ------- CHAPTER 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations presented here are based on re- view of (a) WRC’s “new approach”, the Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning (Level ), March 1976, and the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources, (b) review of EPA’s latest regulations for water quality management planning (40 CFR 130 and 131), and Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan- ning and the States Continuing Planning Process (c) review of the stat- utes and legislative history, Cd) review of literature relevant to Leve) B and water quality management planning, (e) information obtained from discussions with staff and officials of organizations participating in Level B, Sec. 208, Sec. 303(e), Urban Studies and other planning activi- ties in the Central Snake River Basin and Monongahela River Basin case study areas, (f) review of documents pertaining to the case studies, and (g) experience of the investigators. The Level B study was completed or nearing completion for each of the two cases studies. Sec. 208 planning was underway by the Ada/Canyon Area- wide Wa te Treatment Management Committee for the designated Ada/Canyon counties 208 area in the Central Snake River Basin Level B study area, Idaho. The six county Pittsburgh 208 area had been designated and the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission had been designated as the areawide planning agency for part of the area covered by the Mon— ongahela Level B Study, but an approved work plan had not yet been de- veloped; this was known at the time the case study was selected. The States’ continuing planning processes for water quality management in accord with the latest EPA regulations (40 CFR 130 and 131) were in the process of development. The USCE Urban Studies program at Boise was near its m.id-point. The status of planning provided ample information regarding the respective Level B studies and the Boise Urban Study but required some postulation as to the expected conduct of the water quality management planning programs. While the conclusions and recommendations presented pertain to diverse aspects of the case studies, WRC’s Proposed Guidelines for Regional and River Basin Planning and EPA’s regulations for water quality management, five questions are basic to the purpose of the study. They are: (1) What is the existing use of the Level B studies in water quality management planning? (2) What is the usefulness of existing Level B studies in water quality management planning? (3) What is the potential usefulness of future Level B planning in water quality management planning? (4) What are the reasons for the divergence between (1) and (2), and between (2) and (3)? (5) What three or four main actions are necessary to attain the potential usefulness? 2—1 ------- Conclusions especially formulated in response to questions one through four are entitled Summary Conclusions and appear beginning on page 2-7. Recommendations 11,12,13,14, and 15 are particularly responsive to the fifth question. Page numbers in parentheses in the following Conclusions and Recom- mendations refer to the pages in this report where supporting material is to be found. Conclusions General fulfill the Congressional intent, water quality management planning and Level B planning must be conducted in a compatible manner, and to the extent possible, be mutually complementary and supportive (3—16). Congress has established, through en- actment of PL 92-5007 ertain goals and objectives respecting the quality of the Nations’ s water resources and has provided for certain programs to achieve those goals and objectives. These programs include water quality management planning pur- suant to Section 208 and 303(e) and Level B planning directed by Section 209 of the Act. The goals, objectives and programs are matters of national policy and effort and must be so con- sidered in all planning activities. 2.lj iere are certain inherent difficulties in achieving full com- patibility between water quality management planning conducted pursuant to PL 92-500 and EPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 130 and 131) and Level B planning accomplished in accordance with the “new approach”, the WRC Proposed Guidelines and the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources. Water quality management planning essentially has the single objective of meeting approved water quality stand- ards through facilities and regulatory programs to control the discharge of pollutants from point and non-point sources. The only economic criterion is that of cost—effectiveness (3—33). On the other hand, Level B planning is niultiobjéctive, to en- hance National Economic Development and Environmental Quality in accordance with the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources, and multi-functional to meet needs and solve problems. Alternatives are evaluated in terms of the beneficial and adverse impacts on national economic de- velopment, environmental quality, regional development and social well-being. Implementation of water quality management plans must be assured prior to final approval. In general, implemen- tation of Level B plans depends upon further actions and de- cisions (3—33). 2-2 ------- Central Snake Case Study 3. The Central Snake River Basin Level B Study was initiated prior to WRC’s adoption of the “new approach” or development of the Proposed Guidelines. However, the Study has been carried out in general accord with the Proposed Guidelines and the “new approach” except that additional information for fish and wild- life was collected and the study period was extended beyond two years (4-7). 4. Conjunctive consideration of water quantity and water quality management was an important purpose for undertaking the Central Snake Level B Study (4—6) but water quality aspects are not treated in the study report except to assume that the goals expressed in Pt 92—500 will be met (4-8). Neither EPA nor the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare made significant inputs of information to the Study or participated in formu- lation of recommendations (4—15,17) although both were members of the State-Federal Study Team. 5. Lack of knowledge on the part of the water quality management agencies with respect to the Principles and Standards, WRC’s Proposed Guidelines, and of EPA regulations for the State’s continuing planning process by the Level B planners was a serious impediment to effective coordination of programs (4—18, 21,23). 6. Adequate formal and informal mechani ms exist for coordination of the Central Snake Level B Study with water quality manage- ment planning. They have not been used effectively to make Level B and water quality management planning mutually suppor- tive (4-22). Significant amounts of useful information pre- pared in the Level B Study may not be used as a result (4-11, 17) contrary to EPA requirements for use of Level B Study re- sults (40 CFR 130.34(c)] and to the detriment of achieving a practical plan for water quality management in the Central Snake River Basin (4-9). Adverse effects of the lack of coordination on water quality management planning in the Ada/Canyon Counties designated area are mitigated by its upstream location in the Boise River watershed. 7. Failure to incorporate water quality considerations in the Central Snake Level B Study has jeopardized the overall use- fulness of that study (4-9) and the potential for compatible inclusion in the Coordinated Comprehensive Joint Plan of both Level B and water quality management plans (4-10). 8. The ongoing US cE Boise Valley Study has had no discernable effect on the coordination of the Level B Study and water quality management planning conducted by others for the Central Snake River Basin but has itself included some integration of quality and quantity considerations (4—15). 2—3 ------- Monongahela Case Study 9. The Monongahela River Basin Level B Study by the Ohio River Basin Commission (ORBC) was conducted in accordance with the “new approach” and generally followed WRC’s Proposed Guidelines, and the Principles and Standards (4-30). The Study did not adequately address all of the important aspects of water quality discussed hereinafter in chapter 5. This was due in part to lack of input information concerning water quality problems from water quality management agencies. Consideration of quality problems was limited to domestic sewage, industrial wastes, acid mine drainage particu- larly from abandoned or orphan mines, and sediment. Pollution from other important non—point sources such as urban runoff was not considered (4-33). 10. Overall, input to and participation in the Level B Study from Federal and State water quality management agencies was minimal, although it varied among agencies. Opportunity for participation was afforded (4-30). Effective coordination of water quality management and Level B planning was generally lacking (4-39) and made more difficult by the limited participation. 11. Water quality in the Monongahela River Basin near Pittsburgh is poor (4—27) for a variety of reasons. Potential streamfiow depletions resulting from upstream water uses in the three States involved have major impacts on low flows and consequently on water quality in the vicinity of Pittsburgh unless ameliorative actions are taken. One option would be additional water supply storage as proposed in the Level B plan (4—42). The Level B Study did not resolve certain interstate issues relating to repayment for provisions of storage and streamfiow augmentation which would ameliorate the problem (4—36). 12. The principal values of the Level B Plan as regards future water quality management planning are that it: A. Points up the interstate nature of the water quality problems in the Basin and the necessity for coordi- nated interstate actions to solve those problems (4-36, 39); B. Demonstrates the significant adverse impact on critical flows that would be caused by future increases in water use for municipal, industrial, agricultural and power generation purposes, unless additional storage is pro- vided to meet those increased demands (4-28,35); and C. Recommends priorities for implementation of water re- sources management measures including water quality, on a basinwide basis in the context of overall needs for water resource management funding and actions (4—52, 53). 13. Some interviewers in water quality management planning agencies saw little value in the Level B Plan since the information provided was considered to be readily available from other sources (4—42). 2—4 ------- 14. Except for ORBC staff, staffs of the agencies interviewed were not familiar with WRC Proposed Guidelines or Principles and Standards (4—42,47,49,51,52). 15. Water quality management planning by Southwestern Pennslyvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) must proceed under con- ditions of uncertainty as regards implementation, or lack thereof, of interstate water quality management measures par- ticularly as regards provision of additional storage, recommended in the Level B Plan (4-42). Unless those recommendations are carried to fruition, it may be impossible to achieve the national goal of “fishable, swimmable” waters within the designated area even though all point and nonpoint pollutant sources therein are fully controlled. The result would be highly inequitable to those within the designated area who had made heavy investments for pollution control but whose efforts to fully achieve “clean water” would be frustrated by lack of action upstream. The Level B Plan does not, of course, resolve these uncertainties but does serve to identify them and their significance. It points up the neces- sity for actions by others besides• water quality managinent agencies in order that water quality may be maintained and im- proved. 16. Similarly, the uncertainty concerning future critical low flows could lead to serious mis-investments (4—42). Facilities planned and designed on the basis of current critical flow magnitudes might become inadequate in a relatively short time if upstream storage were not provided in time to meet increased upstream water demands. Conversely, planning and design now on the basis of possible reduced critical flows in the future would involve additional investments that need not have been made if upstream storage should be provided and the reduction not occur. 17. The Statewide Comprehensive Water Quality Management Planning Program (COWAMP) and the State Water Planning Program (SW ?) being conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources appear to be well conceived and executed, and fully coordinated (4—50). 18. The present division of responsibilities for water quality management planning and water resources planning among state agencies in West Virginia may make the requisite degree of co- ordination difficult (4-51). Level B Planning 19. Level B planning is intended by Congress to be one means by which • water quality and developmental considerations related to water and related land resources are to be reconciled to provide a coherent basis for resource management (1—4, 3—18). It is re— quired for all parts of the Nation to achieve that purpose (1-3, 3-19) with priority for areas with substantial water quality 2—5 ------- problems (1—3, 3-19). Water quality and solutions to the quality problems that may be involved must therefore be considered to the requisite degree in each Level B study. Resolution of conflicts between water quality and other considerations must take place within the mandates and framework of pi 92-500 through the com- prehensive coordinated joint planning required by PL 89-80 (3-15). 20. Widespread and uniform understanding of the purpose and processes for Level B planning, including its relationship to water quality management planning does not exist (4-17,47,50). Achieving such understanding and the development of procedures to make Level B planning and water quality management planning mutually supportive are seriously hampered by the lack of any definition of the Level B planning products to result. WRC’s Proposed Guidelines do not overcome this deficiency. They are procedural in nature. (B—2). The opportunities for improving understanding of Level B planning and clarifying its relation to water quality management planning would be improved greatly if certain essential parts of the Pro- posed Guidelines dealing with bothplanning procedures and products were made more specific and were promulgated as regulations for planning by Federal agencies and under federally assisted pro- grams, leaving only such matters to the Guidelines as are properly discretionary, with recognition of the need for full coordination with water quality management and other planning programs. 21. The Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources only recognize the national water quality goals estab- lished in PL 92-500 and encourage their consideration (3—23). Planning pursuant to the Principles and Standards is not ex- plicitly required to comply with water quality standards and time frames for their accomplishment established in accordance with statutory directives. No base is established or guidance provided for the measurement of water quality related impacts on national economic development or regional development (3-23). 22. WRC’S Guidelines do not insure full consideration of water quality management in Level B planning. Water quality management is not specified as one of the focusses to be considered in all Level B studies and evaluation of water quality impacts of proposed pro- jects and programs is not expressly required (3-28). The Guide- lines do not specify how water quality management plans and pro- cedures such as water quality standards, effluent limitations, NPDES permit conditions, and plans developed by the State’ s con- tinuing planning process are to be taken into account in Level B planning (3—23). 23. WRC’s Proposed Guidelines are generally compatible with EPA’s regulations for the State’ s continuing water quality management planning process and would neither exacerbate nor improve the interrelationships except fhat the Guidelines’.: 2—6 ------- A. Restriction on development of new information may frus- trate adequate consideration of water quality and other environmental concerns for which presently available data are limited in many areas (3-27); B. Flexibility in the selection of study focusses by the study team may permit omitting water quality as a sig- nificant concern (3—27); and C. Procedures for evaluation and selection of the recom- mended plan which properly encourage consideration of tradeoffs among objectives do not require compliance with approved water quality standards (3-28). Water Quality Management Planning 24. EPA regulations (40 CFR 130.34] require the consideration of some types of information expected to result from Level B plan- ning, and development of certain of that information in the event Level B planning has not been initiated (3-13), but do not require full consideration of quality/quantity interrelation- ships as described in cthapter 5, or specify how integration of Level B outputs with water quality management is to be achieved. Neither EPA’s Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management nor the State Continuing Planning Process Handbook provide elabor- ation on relationships between water quality management and Level B planning or how Level B study products are to be used. 25. EPA regulations on intergovernmental cooperation and coordination [ 40 FR 130.16] place responsibility for coordination of water quality management planning with other activities on the States (3—12) and only require representatives of the State and public on policy advisory committees (3-30). Provisions are not suf- ficient to assure that mechanisms for coordination of Level. B and other types of water and land resources planning by river basin commissions and the Water Resources Council are used ef- fectively. Summary Conclusions 26. At the time of interviews (March 1976), the water quality manage- ment planning agencies had made little use of the Level B planning studies, and the staffs:of those agencies saw comparatively little value in the Level B studies and plans. Participation and input by the water quality management agencies in the Level B planning activities had been minimal In the Central Snake River Basin, some use had been made in water quality management planning of 2—7 ------- basic data collected in the course of the Level B study and comon use was made of certain projections. For the Monon— gahela River Basin, some value was attributed to the Level B Plan for water quality management planning because of its interstate coverage. 27. The Level B studies and plans for the two river basins can be of value in water quality management planning. The values encompass: A. Availability of compiled data on geology, hydrology, climatology, soils, land and water uses, demography, economic and cultural development and related matters; B. Identification and description of the major water and related land resources problems, needs and opportunities for development in the basins which should be considered in developing water quality management plans and programs; C. Projections of types, locations, and amounts of future demands on the water resources of the basins for the several purposes to be served; D. Identification, analysis, evaluation and screening of the several plans and programs that have been proposed by various entities for control, conservation, pro- tection, development and use of the water resources; E. Formulation and evaluation of alternative plans to satisfy projected demands for water and their probable effects on stream flows, particularly critical low flow rates; F. Identification and evaluation of certain tradeoffs involved in developing comprehensive basinwide plans for water resources management and in decisions con- cerning such management; G. cost estimates for projected future water develop- ments in the basins, useful in allocating and scheduling funding for comprehensive water resources management; H. For the Monongahela River Basin, identification of actions and decisions by entities other than water quality management agencies which will be needed to complement the waste treatment facilities and regula- tory programs; I. For the Monongahela River Basin, identification of the interstate nature of both developmental and water quality management problems, and the need for coordinated inter- state actions to solve those problems; and 2—8 ------- • For the Central Snake River Basin, information on ground- water and groundwater—surface water relationships, prior studies and ongoing resource related investigations, inter- state considerations, and energy. 28.. Properly conducted with due regard for the mandates of PL 92-500 and the water quality management planning programs conducted in accordance therewith, Level B planning should provide the basis for comprehensive management, including water quality management, of the water and related land resources of a particular river basin or region. Level B planning should identify and evaluate both the factors and significant tradeoffs that need con- sidered in developing complementary water quality management plans and development plans. In addition to the information of value for water quality management planning listed in item 27 above, Level B planning should: A. Identify and evaluate the quantity/quality interre- lationships involved in proposed water and related land resource developments and uses; B. Evaluate the waste loads that would be generated by proposed developments and use of water and related land resources and estimate the cost of waste treat- ment facilities and regulatory programs needed to protect receiving waters in accordance with approved water quality standards, in the evaluation of alterna- tives; C. Provide information on the economic values of water quality in relation to the uses being made or due to be made of the waters involved; D. Provide information as to the need for any revision of water quality standards and justification therefor, pursuant to 40 FR 130.17, in the interest of compre- hensive management of the water and related land re- sources concerned; E. Provide the basis for proper allocation and scheduling of funding among the several programs for overall water and related land resource management including water quality management; F. Provide the mechanism for coordination and harmonizing the programs of water quality management agencies and of developmental agencies with the objective of best resource management within the framework of national and statutory policies; and 2—9 ------- G. Provide information concerning energy development and production related factors involved in compre- hensive, basinwide resource management. 29. The reasons for the difference between the expected use and the possible usefulness of the existing Level B plans for the two river basins in the current water quality management planning programs may be categorized as follows: A. Lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of water quality management planning agencies of the present Level B planning program and the potential usefulness of Level B planning results in water quality management; B. Lack of knowledge and understanding by Level B plan- ning agencies of PL 92—500 and its import, and of EPA regulations and guidelines for water quality manage- ment planning; C. Lack of understanding by water quality management planning staffs of the quantity/quality interre- lationships; D. Reluctance by water quality management planning agencies to participate fully in the Level B planning programs; E. Differences in agency philosophy, objectives and interests; F. Conflicts among agencies; G. Ladc of reciprocal expertise on the staffs of Level B and water quality management planning agencies, and lack of adequate reciprocal representation on the respective advisory coninittees. 30. The potential usefulness of Level B planning is not being realized for the following additional reasons: A. Lack of knowledge and understanding by all concerned of the intent of Congress in enactment of Section 209 of PL 92—500; B. Reluctance on the part of Level B planning agencies and staffs to accept and integrate into their planning the goals, objectives and procedures mandated by PL 92-500, the implementing regulations, and the water quality stan- dards and pollution control measures established in accordance therewith; 2—10 ------- C. The indefiniteness of WRC’s Proposed Guidelines for River Basin or Regional Planning (Level B) as to its objectives and expected results, and lack of specificity as to consideration to be given to water quality prob- lems and to coordination with water quality management planning programs; D. The limitations on timing, funding and collection of additional data imposed by WRC’s Proposed Guidelines; E. The lack of specificity in the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources as to the consideration to be given water quality management in the formulation and evaluation of alternative plans, and in selection of a recommended plan; 0 F. Lack of clear direction in EPA’s regulations (40 FR 130 and 131) and guidelines for water quality manage- ment planning as to coordination with and participation in Level B planning activities, and as to the need for and use of Level B planning products; and G. The fact that the Level B planning program and the water quality management planning program are generally out of phase on a nationwide basis. Recommendations Central Snake River Basin 1. The Central Snake Level B Study should be supplemented to in- clude more specific consideration of water quality, particu— larly analysis of the impacts of the Study’s recommended allo- cations of water on meeting national goals established in Sec. 101(a) of PL 92-500. WRC, EPA and the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission should encourage active participation by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare in the further consider- ation of water quality and in preparation of the analysis. EPA should also provide technical assistance including consideration of any interstate impacts. The costs for controlling new point and non—point sources of pol- lutants from new developments considered in Level B planning should be included in economic evaluations. Other beneficial and adverse quality—related impacts such as those resulting from changes in low flows shou]d be evaluated. 2—11 ------- 2. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission and Idaho Division of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordination, Office of the Governor, should assume major responsibility for securing greater coordination of water quantity and water quality management planning in the Central Snake River Basin. EPA Region X should provide technical and policy assistance to the Commission in this effort. WRC should closely monitor all re- lated activities and member agencies should aid the Commission in its efforts to achieve coordination by directing the appro- priate participation of field staff. 3. Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee should request the Idaho Department of Water Resources to provide specific data and information from the Central Snake Level B Study useful for water quality management planning in the Ada/Canyon County designated area and for analysis of the effects of Level B Study recommendations on water quality management requirements in the Boise River Basin near Boise. The two agencies should work together in evaluating the potential effects of water quality management alternatives on recommended Level B Study water allocations. Particular attention should be given to the poten- tial effect of regulatory programs for control of agriculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution on water requirements. EPA’S Idaho Operations Office and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare should assist in the required analyses. Monongahela River Basin 4. Ohio River Basin CommissiOn (ORBC) should give greater con- sideration to quantity/quality relationships and to.evaluation of potential quality impacts of projects and programs under consideration in its ongoing comprehensive coordinated joint planning. Water quality management agencies should provide the necessary input concerning quality. 5. Region III of EPA, the designated State water quality manage- ment planning agencies of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Mary- land, Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission and other designated areawide planning agencies, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Conuniss ion should actively par- ticipate with ORBC in the continuing comprehensive coordinated joint planning to assure full and coordinated consideration of quality problems. 6. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission should make full use of tbe Level B plan information and recommend- ations. 7. Aggressive joint action should be taken by all agencies con- cerned to iu lement the Level B plan recommendations concerning control of acid mine drainage and sediment. 2—12 ------- 8. ORBC should actively promote joint interstate action to control acid mine drainage. 9. In developing the areawide water quality management plan for the designated Pittsburgh 208 area, and the schedule for implemen- tation, Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission should give full consideration to the time that may be required to effect full control of acid mine drainage and sediment in the Monongahela River Basin upstream of the designated area. Like wise, the Commission should give full consideration to potential depletions of minimum stream flows due to upstream water resource development and utilization. 10. Level B plan recommendations for determination of minimum low stream flow requirements for aquatic life and for detailed studies of potential water supply reservoirs to provide for future water uses should be implemented as rapidly as possible. Water Resources Council 11. Instructions for Level B planning should be revised and sup- plemented to: A. Limit content of the Level B Guidelines to information and instructions concerning discretionary procedures and products; B. Expand the Principles and Standards, or promulgate separate regulations, to set forth those required aspects of the Level B planning program which are necessary to achieve complementarity with water quality management planning. Regulations should: a. require maintenance or improvement pf water quality to be appropriately considered in each study; b. provide that the agreements between states and EPA concerning water quality management planning pursuant to 40 CFR 130.11 shall be taken into account in Level B planning; c. require that established water quality standards and other limitations prescribed or established pursuant to PL 92—500 be considered as baseline conditions for Level B planning, and that any changes in quality that would result from implementation of recommendations be evaluated against those baseline conditions; 2—13 ------- d. require evaluation of the effects, including eco- nomic evaluation wherever possible, of alternative resource development plans on achieving, main- taining or otherwise affecting water quality stand- ards, stream segment classifications, waste load allocations, water quality management plans, non— point source controls and other water quality ele- ments developed and adopted pursuant to PL 92-500, including justification of any recommended plan features which may adversely affect such elements; e. require assurances that EPA and state water quality management agencies will participate in Level B studies; f. require Proposals to Study to include assurances by water quality management agencies that necessary water quality inputs will be provided; g. require interim reports on conduct of Level B studies and provide for their review by appro- priate interstate agencies, state water resource and water quality management agencies, and desig- nated local water quality management agencies; h. require certification by Governors of affected states that recommended Level B plans are con- sistent with the State’s program for water quality management and other relevant plans; i. define the specific contents of Level B plans relevant to water quality management. C. Increase emphasis in Level B Guidelines on consideration of specific arrangements for implementing water quality manage- ment plans. 12. The Water Resources Council should make, or seek necessary funds and/or authority to make modifications in the Level B planning program, including: A. Funding and scheduling of studies on an individualized basis in accordance with the study requirements for the particular situation in lieu of the study and time linii— tations now prescribed in “new approach”; B. Providing for collection of new data and information where essential for resolution of critical problems; C. Maintaining and updating Level B studies on a frequent basis, particularly for areas with significant quantity/ quality problems; 2—14 ------- D. Assumption of major responsibility by WRC for coordi— nation and management of Level B studies unless iver basin commissions control study funds or other effective mechanism for assuring coordination is to be utilized. Environmental Protection Agency 13. Regulations for the State continuing planning process should be modified including: A. Expansion of 40 CFR 130.34(c) and (d) to include con- sideration of additional relationships between water quality and water quantity management as described in Chapter 5. B. Inclusion in 40 CFR 130.16(d) of requirements to in- clude representatives of ongoing Level B study organi- zations on policy advisory committees. 14. EPA should ensure that completed and ongoing Level B studies are recognized and appropriate provisions made for coordination in requests for designations, grant applications, work plans and other documents prepared prior to undertaking development of water quality management plans. Monitoring of ongoing water quality management planning should assure coordination procedures are adequate and successful. 15. EPA should place heavy emphasis on use of river basin com- missions or similar entities where they exist to coordinate water quality management planning activities with other water and related land resources planning. EPA should contribute to strengthening the capability of commissions and other similar entities by participation in planning activities and by joint development of specific coordination procedures. General 16. EPA and W1 should jointly work to assure that State and local water quality management agencies are adequately funded for appropriate participation in Level B studies. 17. EPA and WRC should assure that all key participants in planning under their supervision, including those responsible for mcmi— toring ongoing studies, are fully cognizant of Level B and water quality management planning processes including relevant statu- tory and regulatory requirements and the need for considering quality/quantity relationships. A jointly sponsored series of training sessions should be considered for this purpose. 2—15 ------- 18. A technical manual should be jointly prepared by EPA and W to provide guidance on quantity/quality relationships and how these are to be considered and evaluated in the several planning programs, and on the economic evaluation under the Principles and Standards of quality changes. 19. The staffs of water quality management planning agencies and of Level B agencies should have expertise in water resource de- velopmental planning and in water quality management, respectively. 2—16 ------- CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT/LEVEL B PLANNING PROGRAMS This chapter presents a comparison of water quality management planning as prescribed by PL 92-500 (1) and the implementing regulations (2,3,4) and guidelines (5), with Level B planning as directed by WRC Pro- posed Guidelines (7) and Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources (8). Water Quality Management Planning Water quality management planning — by both areawide planning agencies designated pursuant to Sec. 208(a) (2), (3) or (4) of PL 92—500 for desig- nated areas, and state planning agencies designated in accordance with Sec. 208(a) (6) to conduct planning for non-designated areas — is now to be conducted under provisions of 40 cFR Part 130, Policies and Procedures for the State Continuing Planning Process, and 40 CFR Part 131, Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans, effective November 28, 1975. Planning under these new regulations is significantly different in some respects from what was previously termed “areawide waste treatment management planning.” Background Prior to promulgation of the new regulations, the Sec. 303(e)-- state continuing planning process——, Sec. 305--annual reporting and analysis--, and Sec. 106--state and interstate agency program grants-- provisions of PL 92—500 were interpreted as being largely separate each from the other. The decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on June 5, 1975 in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) ‘V. Train, 396 F. Supp. 1386 (1975), precipitated a sub- stantial change in water quality management planning for both designated and non—designated areas. Previously, the state responsibility for plan- ning for non—designated areas had generally been considered to be less than that for designated areas. The NRDC decision set forth the principle that the level of planning by the State for non—designated areas must be equivalent to that of designated areawide planning agencies in designated areas. The Court ordered EPA to issue a revised set of regulations em- bodying this principle. In the course of doing so, EPA has also made several other changes. Before the NRDC decision, it was considered that planning by the State pursuant to Sec. 303 (e) of PL 92—500 was broader and less detailed than areawide planning under Section 208. State planning for non-designated areas under Sec. 208 was expected to be little if any more than what was required to satisfy the maintenance of a “continuing state planning pro- cess” under Section 303(e). The new regulations, promulgated in accord with the Court’s decision that water quality management planning for both 3—1 ------- designated and non—designated areas should be conducted at equivalent levels of detail for the same types of water quality problems, are sig- nificantly different from earlier EPA regulations. The u st significant change has been to blend and coordinate the several planning activities prescribed by PL 92-500. In so doing, the effect of the regulations is to merge areawide waste treatment management planning with planning by the State pursuant to Section 303 (e) as well as with that to be accomplished by the State under Sec. 208. The only real differences now appear to be: A. Whether the planning is done by a designated re- gional agency of essentially interlocal character such as a council of governments or a regional planning commission, or whether it is done by a designated state agency; and B. Full recognition that certain elements of the plan- ning for water quality management as a whole may be reserved for state performance, either because of the nature of the authority involved or because uni- formity on a statewide basis is desired (e.g. 40 cFR 131.ll(f)(4), 131.11(g) (4), and 131.ll(j)(3)(vii)). Thus, 208 planning is to be done for all areas having water quality prob- lems and the delineation of designated area boundaries is primarily sig- nificant in identifying the planner to be either an areawide planning agency or a state planning agency. The (burt precipitated revision took effect on November 28, 1975. This was relatively early in the work of the first group of 208 planning projects which had been initiated prior to the decision, but late enough to have come after the pre-approval work related to the designation of planning areas and their agencies. In many cases, it has also come after oon’pletion of work plans. Consequently, it should be anticipated that there may be some differences in emphasis as between planning processes for 208 plans commenced on or shortly after July 1, 1975 and those carried forward entirely after the appearance of the revised regulations. However, it is likely that, as a practical matter and at least so far as designated areawide planning agencies are concerned, any differences will probably be minor. Water quality management planning by the States may be much re affected. The current regulations provide that conduct of 208 planning by a state agency is to be governed by an EPA-State Agreement (40 CFR Sec. 130.11). While this permits EPA to assure itself concerning the coverage of the work, it also is intended to provide a means of determining whether and at what level of detail, water quality management planning is justi- fiable and practicable. For example, the regulations specificalLy provide that if the State can show that there are no significant water quality problems in a particular area, water quality management planning need 3—2 ------- not be done there (40 CFR 130.11(b)). Further, an EPA-State agreement may determine a level of detail or the selection and measure of concen- tration to be applied in a given part of the State’s non—designated areas (40 CFR 130.11(a)). Thus, water quality management planning for every square mile of land area in a state is not necessarily required at the same intensity and for the same gamut of subject matter. This suggests an important contrast between designated and some non—designated areas. The former are by definition areas in which the State and EPA have officially found significant water quality problems to exist. Accordingly, the statutory list of matters to be considered in the planning, to the extent applicable to the economic, physical and social environment of the particular area, must figure in the planning process. The work plan submitted for approval by EPA must spell out the activities which will be performed. It may emphasize, de—emphasize or even neglect one or more items . important to planning for other areas. Consolidation of the several planning and allied processes called for by PL 92-500 has resulted in some shift in concept. Section 208, according to the unaided statutory language, deals primarily with “area- wide waste treatment management planning”. It may be argued that because Section 208 specifically mandates consideration of such matters as land use and social and economic setting, the title of “waste treatment management planning” was a misnomer and far too narrow for what was actually intended by Congress. Nevertheless, even waste treatment management broadly interpreted would not necessarily or customarily have been thought to in- clude all aspects of water quality management. Such planning must include consideration of the ‘hatural” condition of streams, subsurface waters, and their environments when free of some or all wastes and of other factors such as water uses which are only partially and sometimes tangentially concerned with wastes. In brief, in the contemplated content and procedures for conduct of planning, the new regulations replace “waste treatment management plan— fling” with “water quality management planning” in a much broader context. The intent as stated in 40 CFR 130.1(b) is: —-to unify and, integrate the State and areawide water quality management planning and implementation require- ments of section 208 and other provisions of the Act. Combining the processes into “water quality management planning”, should result in more systematic and integrated planning, especially with respect. to the interrelationships between designated areas and contiguous non—desig- nated areas. When a single state agency is the planner, it also results in submerging the separate requirements and procedures of individual parts of PL 92-500 in favor of a process which includes waste treatment manage- ment planning, standards setting from Sec. 303(c) and (d), and the several surveys and inventories of needs and conditions required by Sec. 305 and 516 (b). 3—3 ------- When the planning agency is a designated areawide agency, the plan- ning process which emerges from the regulations needs to be understood somewhat more narrowly. A substate regional agency is not responsible for the section 303(e) state continuing planning process, for the sub- mission of water quality standards to EPA, or for the furnishing of reports on water quality conditions and on state needs for treatii ent works. This is true even though much of the information concerning designated areas ultimately submitted by state agencies to EPA may come from regional or local governments and their planning agencies. When viewed from the standpoint of a designated areawide planning agency, the process should still be considered as much the same as the previously conceived “areawide waste treatment management planning” under Section 208. The main caveat to this statement is that some items of content which were previously implicit in the concept of comprehensive- ness may now be explicit. For example, 208 planning is to take account of energy production processes and energy requirements in the area pur- suant to 40 CFR 130.34(c)(d). The pdpose of water quality management planning is implementation of the water quality objectives of PL 92—500 through achievement of water quality standards made pursuant to it by reduction or elimination of point and non-point pollutant discharges to the extent necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Consequently, the regulations prominently include the necessity for plans to contain schedules for facilities con- struction as well as the priorities which one would expect to have identi- fied and analyzed in any plan. Section 208 and the regulations spell out the mandatory elements of the areawide waste treatment management plan (water quality management plan) in detail and with reliance on specific lists of component items. Thus, the planning process can be described as comprising data collection and analysis, identification of problems and needs, establishing priorities, development and analysis of alternatives, defining necessary regulatory programs, defining the management structure, scheduling actions for imple- mentation, and selection of recommendations necessary to encompass each of the items (40 CFR 131.1). The planning process should make the relationships among these many component items clear and demonstrate how their implemen- tation will advance achievement of water quality management objectives. Planning Objective The primary objective of water quality management plans is stated in 40 .CFR 131.10(a) to be: to define the programs necessary to achieve the 1983 national water quality goal established in Sec. 101 (a) (2) of the Act. The plans shall identify the controls, regu- latory programs, and management agencies necessary to obtain the water quality goals and the established state water quality standards. 3—4 ------- (2) 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 wild- life and provides for recreation in and on the water to be achieved by July 1, 1983 (Sec. 101 (a) (2), PL 92-500). Plan Content Sec. 208(b) (2), PL 92-500, specifies the matters to be included in an areawide waste treatment management plan, namely: (2) any plan prepared under such process shall include, but not be limited to: (A) the identification of treatment works necessary to meet the anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area over a twenty— year period, annually updated (including an analysis of alternative waste treatment systems), including any requirements for acquisition of land for treatment purposes: the necessary waste water collection and urban storm water runoff systems: and a program to provide the necessary financial arrangements for the development of such treatment works; (B) the establishment of construction priorities for such treatment works and time schedules for the initiation and completion of all treatment works; (C) the establishment of a regulatory program to-- (i) implement the waste treatment manage- ment requirements of Section 201 (c), (ii) regulate the location, and construction of any facilities within such area which may result in any discharge in such area, and (iii) assure that any industrial or commercial wastes discharged into any treatment works in such area meet applicable pre— treatment requirements. (D) the iaentification of those agencies necessary to construct, operate, and maintain all facilities required by the plan and otherwise to carry out the plan; 3—5 ------- (E) the identification of the measures necessary to carry out the plan (including financing), the period of tine necessary to carry out the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within such time, and the economic, social, and envi ronmen— tal impact of carrying out the plan within such time; (F) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agri- culturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution, including runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources; (G) a process to (1) identify, if appropriate, mine—related sources of pollution including new, current, and abandoned surface and under- ground mine runoff, and (ii) set forth pro- cedures and methods (including land use re- quirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources; (H) a process to (i) identify construction activity related sources of pollution, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land use re- quirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources; (I) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water intrusion into rivers, lakes, and estuaries resulting from reduction of fresh water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction, ground water extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods to control such intrusion to the extent feasible where such pro- cedures and methods are otherwise a part of the waste treatment management plan; (J) a process to control the disposition of all re- sidual waste generated in such area which could affect water quality; and (K) a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations within such area to protect ground and surface water quality. 3—6 ------- Planning elements to be included in water quality management plans as specified in 40 CFR 131.10(g) and 131.11 are listed in Table 1, which also lists possible Level B planning outputs for comparison. Coordination with Other Planning Programs Coordination is required by 40 CFR 130.34(a) with other applicable. resource and development planning, including as listed in the regulation: 1. State and local land use and development programs; 2. Activities stemming from applicable Federal resource and developmental programs including: (i) The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (Pub. L. 91—512); (ii) The Safe Drinking Water Act. (Pub. L. 93-523); (iii) The Clean Air Act, as amended (Pub. L. 91—604); (iv) The Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L. 92-583); (v) The Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act (Pub. L. 83—566); (vi) The Rural Development Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-419); (vii) The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, as amended (Pub. L. 88-578); (viii) The National Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89—665); (ix) The Fish Restoration Act (Pub. L. 81-681) and the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Act (Pub. L. 75—415); (x) The Endangered Species Act (Pub. L. 93-205); (xi) Wastewater Management Urban Studies Programs administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers (Pub. L. 685, 1938, Pub. L. 429, 1913); (xii) Transportation Planning administered by the Department of Transportation (Pub. L. 87-866, Pub. L. 93—366, Pub. L. 93—503); 3 7 ------- TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS REQUIRED UNDER 40 CFR 131 WITH POSSIBLE OUTPUT OF LEVEL B STUDY 40 cFR 131.10(g) and 131.11 Requirements for Water Quality Management Plan Contents Possible Level B Study Outputs 1. delineation of planning boundaries — maps of state planning areas, designated planning areas, areas where facilities planning is neces- sary, location of identified water quality and effluent limitation segments, significant dischargers, and fixed monitoring stations. 2. water quality assessment and segment classifications - identification of type and degree of existing and potential problems and point and nonpoint sources of pollution; classification of seg— ments based on cocmon hydrologic characteristics, flow regulation patterns, physical and other charac- teristics, present and future compliance with water quality standards, adjacent land areas and upstream conditions. 3. inventories and projections — municipal and industrial sources of pollutants including description of waste discharge characteristics, ranking of municipal sources, s sn— mation of existing land use patterns, demographic and economic proj ections, projected municipal and industrial wasteloads and projected land use patterns. 4. nonpoint source assessment - description of problems caused by nonpoint sources of pollution in- cluding type of problem, identifi- cation of waters affected, serious- ness and identification of sources by category. — base maps of stream networks, social and cultural features, existing land use, project de- velopments and data collection networks. — sunmaries of existing ground and surface water quality; as- sembly and interpretation of hydrologic information; pro- jections of future land use; information on present and planned flow regulation. — demographic and economic pro- jections, existing land use and projections of future land use, water quality impacts of pro- posed developments, and water use and water supply information. — identification of water quality problems, groundwater/surface water relationships, runoff characteristics, existing and projected activities. 3—8 ------- TABLE 1 CCont’d) COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MANGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS REQUIRED UNDER 40 CFR 131 WITH POSSIBLE OUTPUT OF LEVEL B STUDY 40 CRR 131.10(g) and 131.11 Requirements for Water Quality Management Plan Contents Possible Level B Study Outputs 5. water quality standards — specify uses to be achieved and pro- tected, and criteria necessary to sup- port uses take into account use and value for public water supplies, propa- gation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation purposes, agricultural in- dustrial and navigation purposes. 6. total maximum daily loads - determine total allowable maximum daily load of relevant pollutants for critical flow periods considering seasonal variations, margin of safety, thermal loads, allowance for growth and effluent limitation standards. 7. point source load allocations — five year individual load allocation for point sources considering thermal loads, overall load allocation, growth, NPDES permits, and margin for safety. 8. municipal waste treatment system needs — analysis of alternative systems, land requirements, capital funding requirements and program for financing arrangements considering water quality standards and effluent standards, ex- isting and future population equivalents served, facilities planning, and alterna- tives of connecting industrial sources to system. 9. industrial waste treatment system needs - identification of load reductions re- quired to meet water quality standards and effluent limitations; specify cost recovery provisions. — identify minimum water quality requirements for Level B plan for periodic revision of stand- ards; aid in determining water uses and value; identifying and resolving conflicts among uses; identify planned or anticipated resource developments that would impact uses, including changes in flow regimes. — identification of critical flows, seasonal variations in quality, existing and projected water supply and waste loads. — economic and demographic pro- jections, projected energy de- velopments (thermal), and data for model calibration and verification. - availability and suitability of lands and soils, total resource related financial requirements. Popu- lation projections and inventories of existing facilities. — existing and projected private industrial water supplies and use rates and industrial growth fore- casts. 3—9 ------- TABLE 1 (cont’d) COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS REQUIRED UNDER 40 CFR 131 WITH POSSIBLE OUTPUTS OF LEV B STUDY 40 cFR 131.10(g) and 131.11 Requirements for Water Qualtiy Manacement Plan Contents Possible Level B Study Outputs 10. nonpoint source control needs — alternatives and measures chosen for reducing pollutants from existing non- point sources to a level consistent with the gross allotment established for such sources; alternative land measures chosen for new or potential nonpoint sources so as to maintain ex- isting water quality; agency(s) to super- vise implementation; adequacy of regulatory program to implement measures. 11. residual waste control needs — identify needed controls over residual waste disposal affecting ground and sur- face water quality and describe procedures to achieve controls; identify controls over land and subsurface disposal. 12. urban and industrial stormwater needs - identify new systems and improvements to existing systems needed to a hieve water quality standards emphasizing land use management and other nonstruc— tural techniques; provide estimates of capital and operating costs. 13. target abatement dates — establish schedules for abatement or compliance for all dischargers, nonpoint source control measures, facilities and other programs. 14. regulatory programs — description of existing and needed State and local regulatory programs for plan implementation in- cluding approach, statutory basis and financial aspects; demonstration that recomiiended programs are adequate and that pretreatment requirements will be met. — identification of existing and probable future problems, sources of authority, agencies to imple- ment, etc.; examine potential solutions and recommend an approach consistent among affected States. for interstate problems and areas. — soil characteristics; ground water characteristics, location and depth; projected future rural housing and private waste dis— posal; integration of land use plans for functional purposes. — climatology, rainfall and run- off data; information on existing urban drainage, flooding, and use of land use management and other nonstructural measures for flood damage reduction. - coordination of water quality management program schedule with implementation of recommended Level B plan. — inventory of resources—related statutes and regulatory programs; assessment of non—federal fi- nancial needs for resource develop- ment and management; coordination of institutional arrangements for water quality management with other water related programs. 3—10 ------- TABLE 1 (cont’d) COMPARISON OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS REQUIRED UNDER 40 CFR 13]. WITH POSSIBLE OUTPUT OF LEVEL B STUDY 40 CFR 131.10(g) and 131.11 Requirements for Water Quality Management Plan Contents. Possible Level B Study Outputs 15. management agencies — recommendation of agencies to be desig- nated for implementing, operating and maintaining the plan considering mini- nrnm required authorities specified in Act; describe authorities and budgets. 16. environmental, social and economic impact — assessment of carrying out the plan considering schedule, effectiveness in meeting goals, costs, and impacts. — relationships between implemen- tation and operation of water quality management programs and water rights administration, water resources data collection, state and regional planning and project dev€ lopment and np1emen— tation. — summary of other 1atod impact appraisals; deve1 pn nt of broad assessment of r iQ rCe m mnagement impacts. 3 .11 ------- (xiii) The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-383); (xiv) Other Federal assisted planning and management programs. Other relevant planning programs and plans include among others: 1. Comprehensive, coordinated joint planning authorized by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965; 2. Reclamation planning by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902 and acts amenda- tory thereof and supplementary thereto; 3. Comprehensive planning by the u.s. Corps of Engineers; 4. Planning by interstate agencies; and 5. State water resource management plans. While the regulations cite a number of Federal and State programs with which water quality management planning is to be coordinated, the co- ordination procedures are left to the initiative of the areawide planning agency under the leadership of the State planning agency designated by the Governor (40 CFR 130.12(a)). Areawide water quality management plans, the proposals for their imple- mentation, and the work conducted by the State in the nondesignated areas, must recognize and be integrated with the public health planning and en- forcement activities encompassed in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 92—523), and EPA’S regulations promulgated pursuant thereto (40 R Part 142). %‘ hie the necessity for coordination is obvious, guidance for assuring that it does in fact take place is left with the States. Coordination of the water quality management planning program with the Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program (701) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been formalized in instruc- tions to regional administrators for implementing an agreement reached between HUD and EPA (March 24, 1975, EPA-IAG-P5-0662,). The memorandum of instructions identifies 208 as an abbreviated reference to all related requirements of water quality management planning incorporated in PL 92-500. In the designated areas for 208 planning, an exchange of Overall Program Design (OPD) documents (701 work outlines) and 208 work programs is reccounended in 24 CFR Sec. 600.170 (a). For non-designated areas, the State and EPA must agree on a work program and reach agreements on 208—701 coordination in accordance with 24 CFR Sec. 600.105(b) (2) and Sec. 600.115 (d)(3) and (4). The State OPD submitted for 701 financial assistance must, ‘under these provisions, provide assurances that there are no overlaps or inconsistencies, and make provision for effective and continuing 701—EPA • coordination. 3-12 ------- Coordination between water quality management planning and resource management planning by the States in the coastal areas pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, PL 92-583, is required by EPA in 40 CFR Sec. 130.34, but without procedural requirements. To a substantial though indirect extent, this coordination is guided by an agreement between BUD and the Department of Commerce with respect to coordination of the 701 program and coastal zone management planning. This agreement, dated February 19, 1975, parallels the BUD-EPA agreement cited above. By taking these agreements together in the context of 40 CFR Sec. 130.34, and the imple- mentation memoranda dated March 10, 1976, that BUD has transmitted to the regions, the coordinating link between the 701, 208, and coastal zone management planning progams is to a substantial extent clarified. The regulations for the Urban Studies Program of Corps of Engineers (33 CFR 264.14(c)) cite the responsibility of EPA for areawide waste treatment management and facilities planning, and the need for “close cooperation” between the Corps’ program and EPA field personnel. The Clean Air Act as amended, Federal solid waste disposal programs, and the Federal Flood Insurance program are linked to the water quality management planning process through the implicit or explicit land use aspects of the several acts and Federal agency programs. Placing re- sponsibility for clean air enforcement and solid waste management in designated areawide management entities has been proposed in legislation before Congress. EPA Guidelines establish minimum requirements for con- sideration by 208 planners of clean air and solid waste elements (Sec. 2.3, A and B) under present law. The land use elements of 208, 701 and coastal zone management plan- ning are a matter of explicit Federal interagency coordination, through the agreements cited above. Use of Level B Plans The uses to be made of Level B plans in water quality management planning, where they exist, are stated in 40 CFR 130.34(c). A list of Level B outputs to be en ployed in water quality management planning is presented and followed in 40 CFR 130.34(d) by a shorter list of items to be produced in the water quality management planning process if there is no Level 8 plan for the area in question. The two lists are quoted because it is particularly useful for this report to reflect on the differences: 40 CFR 130.34(c) In the event that a Level B study (as required under Section 209 of the Act) is underway or has been completed, the State or designated areawide planning agency shah consider the following outputs of the study, and where appropriate, provide for integration of the out- puts with the water quality management plan(s): 3—13 ------- (1) Existing and projected future water with- drawals and consumptive demand over a 20 year period; (2) Facilities and management measures to be under- taken to meet demands on the water supply pro- gram; (3) The effects of the water supply program on water quality; (4) Impact of authorized water development measures; (5) Identification of proposed or designated wild and scenic stream reaches; (6) Watershed management and land treatment measures; (7) Energy development and production related factors. (d) In the event that a “Level B” plan has not been initi- ated, the State or designated areawide planning agency shall identify the appropriate constraints on water quality manage- ment which would be brought about by: (1) Current and projected future (20-year period) water demands; (2) Designated and desired wild and scenic river segments; (3) Energy development and production factors. No explanation for the difference is offered in the regulations, nor is it easy to discern why the items on the second list are so necessary that they must be produced, whether or not there is a Level B while the others are to be used only if provided by a Level B. However, both lists are important because they represent a recognition that other aspects of water and related land management must be taken into account in water quality management planning. A basic difference between Level B planning and water quality management planning under PL 92-500 must, however, be kept in mind. The former can have a variety of emphases. Tha— ditionally, it has been oriented toward water resource development. Water quality has been only one of the full range of considerations to be taken into account. As discussed hereinafter, the appearance of Section 209 (regional or river basin planning) in PL 92-500 makes it apparent that Con- gress now intends that planning of the Level B concept be conducted in a manner that will serve water quality management needs as well as the previously 3—14 ------- recognized Level B purposes. Nevertheless, it is generally not the prac- tice in Level B planning to subordinate other water and related land re- source management interests to water quality. On the other hand, water quality management plans under PL 92-500 are intended to further the water quality goals and objectives explicitly stated in that Act. Other aspects of water and related land resource planning would thus appear to be sub- ordinate in congressional priorities to water quality management objectives. If there are legitimate inconsistencies between the results of water quality management planning under PL 92-500 and plans produced for other purposes or under other auspices, they can only be reconciled within the statutory policy framework of PL 92—500 and relevant regulations, par— tictilarly as regards the setting of water quality standards and revisions thereof as specified in 40 CFR 130.17. Implementation The water quality management plan must identify those agencies recom- mended for designation by the Governor as responsible for implementing the several elements of the plan, including those agencies which will construct, operate and maintain all treatment works recommended in the plan and those which will carry out the recommended regulatory programs (40 CFR 131.11(0)). Procedures for designation of these management agencies by the Governor and approved by the Regional Administrator, EPA, are prescribed by 40 FR 130.15. The Regional Administrator must: .accept and approve all designated management agency (ies) unless, within 120 days of a designation, he finds that, the agency(ies) does not have adequate authority, including the requirement that statutory and regulatory provisions required to implement the plan be adopted by the date of plan approval by the Regional Administrator, and capability ( including financial ) .. . to accomplish its assigned re— sporisibilities under the plan. (40 CFR 130.15(d). (In- sertions supplied). Plan Content Requirements An approvable water quality management plan must have 13 principal components to accord with the provision of 40 CFR 131.10 and 131.11, namely: o municipal and industrial treatment works program; o residual waste management program; o urban stormwater management program; o non—point source management program; o regulatory programs necessary for implementation; 3—15 ------- o financial management program; o institutional management program; o schedules and priorities for implementation; o environmental, social and economic impact assessment; o local government’s recommendations with respect to state certification and EPA approval of the plan; o certification of consistency of the plan with other relevant plans; o designation of agencies to implement the plan; o certification and description of the public partici- pation program. Some flexibility exists as to how these 13 principal components may be organized and presented as outputs of the planning process. However, the minimum outputs which are to result, are explicitly identified in Sec. 208(b) of PL 92—500 and regulations (40 CFR 130 and 131) promulgated pursuant to that Act. Water quality management planning is essentially single purpose in nature, that is, to achieve the mandated national water quality goal. The only economic constraint required to be considered in achieving the goal is cost effectiveness for facilities. It is emphasized that a most sig- nificant aspect of water quality management planning is that the plan or portions thereof must be implementable by designated management agencies when finally approved by the Regional Administrator, EPA. Regional or River Basin Planning Level B Planning under the aegis of the Water Resources Council was originally authorized by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, PL 89-80. Pur- suant to Sec. 209 of PL 92-500, Level B plans are to be completed for all river basins in the United States no later than Janyary 1, -1980. Priority in developing such plans is to be given to those basins and portions thereof Which have been designated under Sec. 208 as a result of having substantial water quality control problems. Legislative History of Sec. 209, PL 92—500 Water quality management- -planning as authorized and synthesized-from Sections 208 and 303 (e) of PL 92-500 has a set of attributes that can be extracted from the statutory provisions and the implementing regulatipns. In contrast, Level B planning is a concept mentioned in PL 92-500 but not 3—16 ------- defined or explained there, perhaps because Level B is neither a new term nor a new idea although not specifically defined in PL 89-80. The in- tensity or depth of detail of planning defined as Level B has been tra- ditionally referred to as “reconnaissance level” planning. That term does not, however, give a clue to subject matter or procedures for the conduct of the planning involved. The Level B planning concept expressed in Sec. 209 of PL 92-500 appears to have been intended to be a departure from the type of planning of the same name as previously practiced. Although Congress did not spend many words on the subject, the committee reports do shed important light on the meaning of Level B planning in the context of the water quality management planning programs authorized by PL 92—500. Some inferences can also be drawn from the position of the Level B provision in the Act and from its very appearance there. However, since the term “Level B” had an established meaning prior to the enactment of the Act, it is desirable to set forth the longer known concept first. Level B plans have generally identified programs and projects which would develop the water resources of a particular area or basin for a variety of purposes. Other objectives have been to gather data, and per- form analyses which would identify needs and show how projects would meet them, thereby contributing to economic development, environmental improve- ment and general welfare. Such plans have generally been development oriented and have often given water quality either peripheral attention or none at all. The legislative history of PL 92—500 gives important clues as to the coverage of future Level B plans prepared pursuant to Section 209 under directions developed by the Water Resources Council, as intended by Congress. However, neither the statute nor the committee reports contain any real detail. The principal aid to understanding provided by the history is in terms of the general objectives and value of the expected planning process and indication of those who should participate. The Senate Committee Report (No. 92-414) is not informative because the Senate Bill (S.2770) did not contain any provision comparable to Sec. 209 of the present statute. Accordingly, only the House Committee Report (No. 92—911) and the Conference Committee Reports (No. 92-1236 and No. 92—1465) are informative. Both are consistent, but the former is longer and so offers a little more of the flavor from which the intended planning approach can be interpreted. Report No. 92—911 states: The time has long passed when this Nation can afford to consider each problem on an ad hoc basis. We can no longer act as if one environmental issue is not related to any other; after all, the pretense that industrial growth is unrelated to environmental quality has brought: us to where we are today. Even an issue so pressing as water quality cannot be considered or resolved without concurrent con- sideration of water quantity problems. The Committee 3—17 ------- recognizes that comprehensive planning programs have been underway for the past 50 years and that they are now under the aegis of the Water Resources Council. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engi- neers, along with all other Federal agencies, participate in the activities of the Council and follow the Council ‘s directions with respect to comprehensive planning. In its statement of July 27, 1970, ‘Water and Related Land Resources Planning,’ the Council provides for develop- ment of regional and river basin plans (Level B) in co- operation with State and local interests--such planning considers both quantity and quality problems, Federal and non—Federal alternatives in solving those problems, and is focused on the next 15 to 25 years.. A Level (B) plan for a basin identifies each water resource project and each water quality program that should be author- ized and implemented to attain the water quantity and water quality objectives extablished for the river basin plan. Only through such a rational, comprehensive plan- ning process can we provide a program to cope, on a sound priority basis, with our water quality problems (page 97). Report No. 92-911 also notes that no comprehensive plans for river basins had been completed since WRC began operations because funds were lacking, and points to the $200 million:to be authorized under Section 209. In this connection, it is declared that the Level B planning will be done pursuant to the directions of WRC but that the bulk of the funds are expected to be transferred to agencies such as EPA, the Corps, and others to do the actual work on the plans. EPA was not a member of WRC at the time PL 92-500 was under consider- ation. Planning for water quality management is explicitly to be a purpose of Level B planning which is to take full account of both quality and quantity considerations. Level B plans are now supposed to emphasize and integrate both the previous developmental aspects of Level B planning and the en- vjronmenta]. concerns associated with achievement and maintenance of water quality to the standards and requirements in effect pursuant to PL 92-500. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that Level B plans were conceived by Congress as vehicles for reconciling development and quality issues in a basin or area, or at least for pointing out divergences or conflicts that need to be resolved and the alternatives available for doing so. Some significance should be given to the appearance of Section 209 in the statute. To do water quality planning of the conventional kind, including the “comprehensive” water quality planning authorized by Sec. 3(c) 3—18 ------- of the predecessor Act (70 Stat. 498), it was not necessary to deal ex- plicitly with the concept and procedures of Level B plans completed or concurrently under development. Consequently, inclusion of a statutory provision in the basic federal water pollution control law argues that henceforth comprehensive water and related land resources plans and com- prehensive water quality management plans are expected to reflect exami- nation of both quantity and quality issues. The legislative history of Sec. 209 could be interpreted to mean that Congress intended the Level B planning process to provide a frame- work within which water quality management planning would proceed. However, it is clear that Congress expected the two planning programs to be carried out more or less concurrently in areas with significant water quality prob— leins. Completion of initial plans by designated areawide waste treatment management planning agencies was scheduled some years before 1980, the statutory time limit for completion of Level B plans for all river basins in the Nation. Congress appears to have envisioned that Level B planning could and should complement the process by which water quality would be improved and maintained and that the two planning programs should be fully coordinated. Level B Planning Process and Plans The purpose of Level B planning conducted in fulfillment of the mandate of Sec. 209 must be to provide a comprehensive, interagency and intergovern- mental process for integrating the planning conducted pursuant to other sections of PL 92-500, notably Sec. 208, and the several other water and related land resource planning programs conducted by Federal agencies, regional entities, the states, and local entities, into a comprehensive management strategy that would resolve “critical mid-term (15—25 years) issues and problems” (WRC Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning [ Level B] March 1976, II,C). The integrated planning would, as envisioned in the Guidelines “reflect the overall priorities and preferences of the interested public”. The language of Sec. 209 establishes the priorities to be observed by WRC in conducting Level B planning by relating its mandate to the identification of areas for conducting Sec. 208 planning.: Sec. 209(a). The President, acting through the Water Resources Council, shall, as soon as practicable, prepare a Level B plan under the Water Resources Planning Act for all basins in the United States. All such plans shall be completed not later than January 1, 1980, except that pri- ority in the preparation of such plans shall be given to those basins and portions thereof which are within those areas designated under pare graph (2), (3) and (4) of sub- section (a) of Section 208 of this Act (emphasis supplied). 3-19 ------- WRC’s Proposed Guidelines describe the principal features of the planning process in these tents: III. Level B Processes The Level B process is designed to provide basic data, inforrna tion, concepts, projections, and comprehensive water and related land resource plans and decisions for specific study areas. The Council’s Level B planning approach includes the following major features: - proposals to study (PTS) developed for use in determining merit to commitment of planning funds (Section III.A. and B.); - plans of study (Pas) at the beginning of planning (Section III.D.); - strong central management (Section III. P.); - centralized funding (Section III .E.l); - a first-cut plan published early in the study for review and feedback (Section III .F .2); - two—year study effort (Section III.F.2); - costs reduced by emphasis on judgmental planning and use of available data (Section III.F.3) (references added). The Proposed Guidelines are designed to carry out the “new approach” to Level B planning which was set forth in WRC’s Second annual Report to the Congress of the United States on Level B (Section 209) Planning in 1974, in order to reduce the time and expense required to produce usable Level B plans. The “new approach” emphasizes reliance on available data and on plans and programs already developed or under consideration. The Proposed Guidelines are to undergo a one-year field test. This will assist in identifying strengths and weaknesses. Leadership by WRC in conducting and/or sponsoring Level B planning stems directly from the Congressional mandate. This authority and re- sponsibility is sunmarized in the Proposed Guidelines in II.A: II Role of Level B Studies A. Authority Multiagency water and related land resources planning is performed under the guidanöe of the Water Resources Coun- cil (WRC) by virtue of the 1965 Water Resources Planning Act (PL 89—80).——— ------- Further specific Congressional direction in water and land resources planning has been provided in PL 92-500, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, October 1972. Section 209 of PL 92-500 calls for the President, acting through the Water Resources Council (WRC), to prepare Level B plans for all basins in the United States by January 1, 1980. The Level B planning process is designed to build a management strategy to resolve the problems identified in Level A studies, and, presumptively, to precede and provide the basis for prioritizing project—type implementation planning (Level C). The Level B plan, thus, is regional in scope, as opposed to the problem—specific, site-specific Level C plan. Level B (regional or river basin) planning is directly linked to the application of the Principles arid Standards for PLanning Water arid Related Land Resource (s) as a guide to conduct and product of planning ifl I.B. 1 Activities Covered, of the Standards, as follows: 1. Comprehensive plar4ning. These standards apply to Federal participation in comprehensive framework studies and assessments and regional or river basin planning of water and land resources whether carried out——— a, by river basin commissions established under the Water Resources Planning Act; b. by entities performing the functions of a river basin commission, including, but not limited to, such entites as: (1) Federal—interstate compact commissions; (2) Federal-interstate interagency cormnittees; (3) Federal—State coordinating committees; (4) Federal -State development commissions; (5) Lead Federal agency with special authori- zation for comprehensive planning; (6) Other entities designated by the Council engaged in comprehensive water and land resource planning with coordinated Federal technical or financial assistance. In formulating plans to meet the multiobjectiveS all al- ternative means shall be considered, including, but not limited to, water and land programs to be carried out directly by the Federal Government, Federal financial and technical participation in water and land programs 3—21 ------- to be carried out by State or other non—Federal entities, and Federal licensing activities that affect the develop- ment, conservation, and utilization of water and land resources. WRC Proposed Guidelines are intended to provide a process through which the national economic development and environmental quality objectives planning concept of the Principles and Standards can be implemented on a multifunctional basis under the “new approach”. Under the Principles, Part V.C., Formulation of Alternative Plans, multiobjective planning is a key element in the Level B planning process: Based upon identified needs and problems, alternative plans ( including both structural and nonstructural measures ) will be prepared and evaluated in the context of their contribu- tions to the multiobjectives. This involves comparisons among objectives, and it will be necessary to formulate alternative plans that reflect different relative emphasis among the objectives for the planning setting. The number of alternative plans to be developed for each planning effort will depend upon complementarities or con- flicts among specified components of the objectives, resource capabilities, technical possibilities, and the extent to which the design of additional alternative plans can be expected to contribute significantly to the choice of a recommended plan. Because planning staffs are limited, emphasis should be placed on examination of those waters and land use plans which may have appreciable effects on objectives. With respect to the number of alternative plans there will be a continuing dialog among the Water Resources Council, river basin commissions, and other planning groups, em— phasizing on the one hand the need for national guidelines and overview of objectives for which alternative plans are formulated, and on the other the special insights into local planning situations that field level teams may develop. Appropriate methods and techniques for estimating beneficial and adverse effects will be used to provide reliable esti- mates of the consequences and feasibility of each alterna- tive plan. In the cases where the trade offs among objectives are judged to be significant in the context of either national priorities or more localized priorities, an alternative plan will be formulated to emphasize the contributions to each such ob- jective. One such alternative plan will be formulated in which optimum contributions are made to the nations economic 3—22 ------- development objective. Additionally, during the planning process at least one alternative plan will be formulated which emphasizes the contributions to the environmental quality objective. Other alternative plans reflecting significant trade offs among the national economic de- velopment arid environmental quality objectives may be formulated so as not to overlook a best overall plan. Alternative plans emphasizing contributions to specified components of the regional development objectives will be prepared only with advance approval (insertion added). Under II.B., Objectives, of the Standards, the Water Quality Act of 1965, PL 89—234, the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, PL 89-753, and the water quality goals established by PL 92-500, among other statutes, are listed as “Major Congressional Directives”. But the Principles and Standards provide no guidance as to the manner in which the goals and objectives of PL 92—500 are to be considered in Level B planning. Like- wise, the Principles and Standards do not indicate how the water quality standards, effluent limitations, and non—point source controls established pursuant to the mandates of PL 92-500 and EPA implementing regulations, 40 CFR 130 and 131, are to be treated in the Level B planning process. The Standards provide, in II.D., Objectives, that: a. Enhancement of quality aspects of water, land, and air by control of pollution or prevention of erosion and restoration of eroded areas embracing the need to harmonize land use objectives in terms of productivity for economic use arid development with conservation of the resources——— is to be considered as a component of the national economic development ob- jective. As stated in II.F.2.a., “—-an improvement in water quality, and improvement in the reliability of both quantity and quality--” are to be evaluated as contributions to that objective. However, the Principles and Standards are silent as to the base from which an improvement in quality is to be measured. WRC’s Proposed Guidelines describe the end products of the Level B planning process (III. G. 1,2, 3). The minimal information requirements are: 1. A concise (approximately 100 pages) report for use by the Congress. As a minimum, the Level B study report must in- clude the information described below for the nationwide evaluation process to be carried out by the Water Resources Council (WRC) and local, State, and Federal participants as required in Section 102 of PL 89-80. 3—23 ------- a. critical issues, problems,and needs of the study area; b. the recoranended plan and alternatives with an explanation of the selection process; c. an abbreviated four-account (National Economic Development F Environmental Quality (EQ) Social Well—Being (SWB), and Re ional Develop- ment (RD)) display of the effects of the recom- mended plan and alternatives; d. a discussion of the assignments and the time- table for implementation of program, project, and management proposals of the study area plan, thereby setting priorities for the study area; e. major gaps in data and technology in planning for study area needs; f. reconinendations for Level C, special or other studies necessary that should be undertaken under separate follow—up authority; g. a comparison of any alternative economic and demographic projections used in the Level B study with the OBERS baseline projections; h. suirinary of plan formulation rationale and methodology; i. an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) dis- playing the overall effects of the plan. The five major requirements of Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should be addressed in one section with referen- ces to other parts of the report to avoid dupli- cation thus making the Environmental Impact Statement (BIS) an integral part of the report. 2. An executive sumary containing at least the following parts: a • a complete concise picture of study effort, alternative plans treated, and the recom- mended plan; b. conclusions and step—by—step actions to accomplish the reconunended plan; 3—24 ------- C. summary of beneficial and adverse effects (an abbreviated four-account display) of implementing the plan; d. location of additional information and backup data. 2. Supporting documents or technical papers will be: a. referenced in the report but will be pro- vided only with technical review copies of the study report; b. maintained for in—office public review by the river basin commission (RBC) and/or study participant; c. available to public at cost, possibly through National Technical Information Service (NTIS). WRC Proposed Guidelines offer some generalized direction as to the relationship of Level B planning with other plans and programs in II.C. by citing “examples” of other programs that should be integrated into a Level B study. Use of the term example implies that all relevant plans and programs are to be used as input to the Level B planning process. The specific examples cited are: 1. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--7Ol Studies, Flood Insurance, Federal Disaster Assistance; 2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--Water Quality Studies, i.e., Sec. 208 and 303(e); 3. Federal Energy Administration (FEA)--Project Inde- pendenóe; 4. Interior--Land Use, Fish and Wildlife, Recreation Special Studies, i.e., Total Water Management, Out- door Recreation, Endangered Species; 5. Commerce——Coastal Zone, Commercial Fisheries, Weather Modifications; 6. corps of Engineers (COE)—-Urbafl Studies, Basin Studies, Flood Plain Management Services; 7. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)--Small watershed, Resource Conservation and Development, Rural • Development, Type IV River Basin, National Forests; 8. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA); 3—25 ------- 9. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); 10. Department of Transportation--Water Transportation. The outputs of Level B planning to be considered in water quality manage- ment planning are identified in 40 CFR 130.34 (c) and were discussed pre- viously (pages 3—13). WRC Guidelines (13) for conducting Phase II, Specific Problem na1ysis, of the 1975 National Assessment, September 1974, relate the Assessment pro- gram to Level B planning under activity Three and Four and in subactivities 12,13,14,15,16, and 17, and graphically in Figure 2 of the Phase II Guide- lines. The National Assessment is not of Level B scope or necessarily comparable with a Level B study. Briefly, the Assessment is to identify problem areas and issues, re- late these areas and issues regionally as a predicate to evaluation of the need for Level B planning, and prioritize recommendations for Level B planning based on the urgency and/or severity of identified problems It may also serve to identify needed Level C or special studies. As identified in Section 208 of PL 92-500, the objective of water quality management planning is to encourage and facilitate “--development and implementation of areawide waste treatment management plans--” in areas having substantial water quality control problems as the result of “——urban—industrual concentrations or other factors——”. In this sense, 208 planning might be considered as a means of solving problems envisioned in the National Assessment Guidelines definition of “problem areas”. Under the Assessment Guidelines, it is envisioned that several such “prob- lem areas” might appropriately be joined in a Level B planning area recom- mendation. This relationship is somewhat modified by the judicial require- ment that 208 planning be conducted in non-designated areas to achieve a management plan for water quality control but the conceptual relationship in geographic scope seems clear. Scheduling of water quality management planning follows a process established in PL 92—500, for the various steps of designation, inter- action between State, EPA and planning entities, and plan formulation, review and approval. These specifications in the Act are amplified and reinforced in the EPA regulations. WRC Proposed Guidelines for Level B planning are much n re generalized, with the only requirement in Section 209 of the Act being ccmpletion of Level B planning for the entire United States by January 1, 1980, a deadline which seems wholly unrealistic, in view of the limited funding so far provided. 3-26 ------- Comparison of Water Quality Management Planning and Level B Planning ‘Programs The Proposed Guidelines which have been prepared by WRC for field evalu- ‘ation in the Level B planning program and the EPA regulations and guide- lines relating to the continuing planning process in state and designated planning areas differ in substantial respects. As shown in Appendix B the two sets of Guidelines are not parallel documents and deal only with a few common points. The comparison has been performed by careful examin- ation of the Level B Proposed Guidelines to identify any instructions contained therein which would cause Level B planning to complement or to conflict with state and areawide water quality management planning and i m- plementation carried out pursuant to 40 CFR 130 and 131. The following are specific points of possible incompatibility: A. Reliance on available information and hasis on judgmental planning — Water quality management ac- tivities, including planning and permitting programs, are heavily oriented toward implementation. Pro- grams are dependent upon precise and complete listing of discharges, detailed analyses of water quality and extensive management investigations. The Level B Pro- posed Guidelines emphasize and encourage the use of judgmental planning to minimize costs and study time (Sec. 111(F) (2)). Level B plans are to be based on review and use of available material accepting any gaps in information and data. Detailed studies such as are necessary for “implementation studies” are specifically described as “inappropriate for studies of Level B intensity.” Data and information available for use in Level B planning may be insufficient to provide the types, amount, and detail of information on which water quality planning and implementation decisions must be based. As constrained by the WRC Proposed Guide- lines, Level B studies in some cases might be unable to consider the full range of present and potential water quality problems, their ramifications with re- spect to the management of water and related land resources for other purposes or all of the potential trade—offs, because of lack of immediately available information. B. Selection of Level B focusses — The Proposed Level B Guidelines describe the other programs which should be “integrated into a Level B study including many which are linked through various interagency agreements pro- viding for coordination of planning, particularly with respect to land use (Sec. 11(c)). 3—27 ------- The Guidelines leave great flexibility to the Level B study team in selecting what will, in fact, be considered. The instructions provided with respect to selection of Level B study focusses make no mention of how other pro— grains are to be considered nor identify any minimum points which Level B studies will address (Sec. II (A) (2), Sec. P1(D) (5)). This omission could result in Level B plan- ning not considering water quality except as an incidental issue. Contrarywise, PL 92—500 and EPA regulations and guidelines are specific as regards problems that water quality management planning must address. C. Selection of the recommended plan — The Proposed Level B Guidelines (Sec. 11(C)) state: Thus, management strategies integrating the appropriate natural resources programs, and considering institutional and other policy issues, are selected to best reflect the overall priorities and preferences of the public. This approach to selection of management strategies does not give specific direction to the Level B planner as to other programs that are to be maintained whole to the extent that they exist at the time of Level B planning, or that requirements of other important programs are to to be considered explicitly. The direction to select management strategies which “best reflect” overall public priorities suggests a high degree of flexibility for the planner to decide the relative merits of differing pro- grams. Regulations and guidelines affecting the formulation of water quality management plans are much more specific than those for Level B studies. Plan formulation must address at least those point and non—point sources of pollutants specified in Sec. 208(b), provide cost—ef- fective sblutions meeting 1983 goals, and be demon- strably effective. Trade-offs in the plan formulation process do not consider what is to be accomplished but rather the priority, method and responsibility for ac- complishment to meet established water quality standards. Entities Involved Both Level B pl ning and water quality management planning and imple- mentation involve significant numbers of persons respresenting various in- terests and sources of information. Participants can be generally divided into entities responsible for planning and implementation and those which assist in the activities. 3—28 ------- The variation of the key participants in the planning process has import with respect to coordination of the several programs. Only EPA and the State water quality control agencies provide the across-the-board participation in all water quality management programs. Yet, neither is always included in the management structure for Level B studies. Of equal significance, State agencies responsible for water resoui ce planning and development and for allocation of water resources are not always included in the management structure for water quality management planning. Par- ticipation by all responsible state agencies in both planning programs is necessary to obtain the requisite degree of coordination. EPA regulations (40 CFR 130.13(c) (1) through 15)) require that the agency designated by the Governor of a state to develop an areawide water quality management plan for a designated area shall: 1. be a representative organization whose membership shall include, but need not be limited to, elected officials of local governments or their designees having jurisdiction in the designated areawide plan- ning area; 2. have waste treatment planning jurisdiction in the entire designated areawide planning area; 3. have the capability to have the water quality manage- ment planning process fully underway no later than one year after approval of the designation; 4. have the capability to complete the initial water quality management plan no later than two years after the planning process is in operation; and 5. have established procedures for adoption, review, and revision of plans and resolution of major is- sues, including procedures for public participation in the planning process. For the non—designated geographic areas of the State, the Act requires the State to undertake water quality management planning (Sec. 208 (a) (6)). The Governor is required to designate the State planning agency to be re- sponsible for the conduct and coordination of the required planning in both the designated and non-designated planning areas (40 CFR 130.12). In contrast, the number and interests of participants in Level B plan- ning is much more fluid. WRC Proposed Guidelines anticipate that a river basin commission would take the lead in Level B study management. A plan- ning board or coordinating committee is “usually” established, chaired by the study manager, and composed of representatives from “those Federal 3—29 ------- and State agencies involved with major water and related land programs in the study area” (Guidelines, I II .D.). Presumptively, agency representation will be the same as or compatible with the interagency groups created to conduct the National Assessment activities. The planning board or coordinating committee is responsible for: developing study policies, and schedules; resolving plan- fling issues; and directing plan formulation. •Each member is responsible for the quantity, quality, and timing of his respective agency ‘s technical inputs in accordance with the Plan of Study. The group meets periodically in formal sessions and at other times as determined by the study manager. This group traditionally employs a concensus rule to make decisions. The State and agencies should be represented by individua k knowledgeable about the study area and capa- ble of representing State or agency policy - (Sec. 111.2. a.) The study manager is selected by and is responsbile to the river basin commission where one exists or to WRC. In areas where no river basin com- mission has been formed, the WRC consults with the states involved prior to selection and appointment of the study manager. Although WRC Proposed Guidelines provide for creation, optionally, of a Citizens Advisory Committee to provide input to Level B studies (Guide- lines III.D.2.), no representation of local elected officials is required in contrast to the EPA regulations which stipulate representation in desig- nated areawide planning entities. Similarly, the policy advisory committee described in the EPA regulations (40 CFR 130.16(b) and Cc)) is mandatory, and, further, must include a majority membership of local elected officials: (b) Local governments within the State are to be en- couraged to utilize existing, or develop, appropriate institutional or other arrangements with local govern- ments in the same State in the development and imple- mentation of water quality management plans, or portions thereof. (C) The State shall provide a mechanism for meaningful and significant results from local, State, interstate, and Federal units of government. As an element of this mechanism, a policy advisory committee(s) shall be established to advise the responsible planning or im- plementing agency during the development and implemen- tation of the plan on broad policy matters, including the fiscal, economic and social impacts of the plan. 3—30 ------- Use of existing policy advisory committees is encouraged; however as a minimum, this policy advisory committee shall include a majority membership of representatives of chief elected officials of local units of government. The planning organization for Level B planning, including the study manager, is appointed for the two-year period during which the plan is to be developed. Interagency task forces are envisioned by WRC Proposed Guide- lines as the mechanism for carrying out specific tasks not within the capa- bility of the planning staff.(Guide].jnes, III.2.d.). The planning entity designated by a Governor for 208 planning, on the other hand, is to be in place with an existing planning capability. This capability is supplemented by funding consultant contracts as a means of accomplishing the work laid out in the work plan. Consultant contracts can likewise be funded under Level B studies. Planning and Implementation Processes The processes for conducting Level B and water quality management planning and implementation vary considerably. Study Initiation - Level B studies are initiated subject to petition by interested states, river basin commissions and others. Requests for studies generally exceed the funds available and WRC screens requests and selects those to be undertaken; EPA is involved in the screening and selection process. In contrast, water quality management studies are mandated and the principal question involves identification and designatton of the agency(s) to be responsible for conduct. Study Definition - The nature of a Level B study is determined in the field subject to broad guidance from WRC. Outputs are not speci- fied. Water quality management planning is defined with respect to content and outputs and specific guidance is provided with respect to each. Both types of studies proceed through a progressive refinement of the description of work prior to beginning extensive planning efforts. Study Objectives — Objectives relevant to all water resources planning undertaken by WRC, river basin commissions and certain other organizations are stated in the Objectives portion (Part II) of the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources as follows: The overall purpose of water and land resource planning is to promote the quality of life, by reflecting society’s preferences for attainment of the objectives defined below: 3—31 ------- A. To enhance national economic development by increasing the value of the Nation’s output of goods and services arid improving national economic efficiency. B. To enhance the quality of the environment by the management, conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, or improvement of the quality of certain natural and cultural re- sources and ecological systems. The definition of Level B studies provided in the Levels of Planning portion (Part C) of the Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Resources makes clear that Level B studies are intended to “re- solve complex long—range problems”, “involve Federal, State, and local interests in plan formulation” and “identify and recommend action plans and programs to be pursued by individual Federal, State, and local entities”. Section IV of the Proposed Guidelines, Relationship of Level B Studies to Other Studies adds to the range of Level B study objectives. It implies the objectives of resolving “near—term” and “mid—term” issues and problems. Objectives of the continuing planning process for water quality manage- znent are to: 40 CFR 130.1(c). ..assure that necessary institutional arrangements and management programs are established to make and implement coordinated decisions, designed to achieve water quality goals and standards; to de- velop a Statewide (State and areawide) water quality assessment, and to establish water quality goals and water quality standards which take into account over- all State and local policies and programs, including those for management of land and other natural resources ; and to develop the strategic guidance for preparing the annual State program plan required under Section 106 of the Act (emphasis supplied). Water quality management planning objectives are described with re- spect to the objectives of the plans which are to result. Regulations for the preparation of water quality management plans state: 40 CFR 131.10(a).. .the primary objective of the water quality management plans shall be to define the pro- grams necessary to achieve the 1983 national water quality goal established in Section 101(a) of the Act. 3—32 ------- Whereas Level B planning objectives include a concurrent consideration of multi—functional problems over several time frames to formulate a plan, water quality management planning is directed specifically to a short- term, single function objective. Study Conduct - Both types of studies are conducted by a number of participants structured as work groups or task forces with a single agency responsible for supervision. Level B studies are based on available infor- mation, emphasize breadth of study and stress multi-objective and multi—func- tional solutions. Water quality management studies require detailed investi- gations, emphasize the depth of investigation for a single objective and stress single purpose solutions, i.e. to meet effluent limitations and water quality standards. Evaluation Procedures — Alternative Level B plans are evaluated on the basis of trade—off s among their effects on national economic development and environmental quality with regard also for regional economic develop- ment and social well being. Water quality management plans are evaluated on the basis of cost—effectiveness in meeting established objectives and consideration of the social, economic and environmental impacts of alterna- tive plans. Plan Approval - Level B plans are approved by planning participants, river basin commissions and/or states, depending on the existing insti- tutional structure. Water quality management plans are approved by Gover- nors and Regional Administrators, EPA. Plan Implementation — No specific process for implementation is re- quired for Level B plans. However, a priority list of projects recommended in the Level B plan must be submitted with later agency requests for study or project funding to follow. Approved water quality management plans become a part of the State’s plan for water quality management, influence availa- bility of funding and have other facets mandating implementation. Imple- mentation is also backed by Federal control of the NPDES program. The essential difference is that a water quality management plan must be imple- mentable by the designated management agencies once it is finally approved by Regional Administrator, EPJ ,whereas implementation of a Level B plan may be dependent on subsequent decisions. Plan Updating — Level B plans are updated as required. Water quality management plans are part of a continuing planning process providing at least annual updates of important parts of the plan. Types and Detail of Study products Many of the products of water quality management planning are mandated by statute. Others are specified in regulations and administrative memoranda. 3—33 ------- The categories of products include lists, program descriptions, analyses, and agencies and measures available for implementation. They have been identified in detail on pages 3-5 and in Table 1. A comparison of required water quality management plan contents with possible Level B planning outputs is presented in Table 1. Level B study products include a brief (100 page) report for use by Congress, an executive suimnary and supporting documents or technical papers (Sec. 111(G)). In addition, various reports containing backup data are usually prepared. The outputs of the Level B and water quality management planning programs as described in the several regulations arid guidelines have no inherent conflict with one another. Water quality management planning product descriptions are much more explicit and detailed. However, the general character of the Proposed Level B Guidelines does not prohibit their interpretation in a way compatible with water quality management planning. As an example, the “assignment of implementation authority” to emerge from Level B planning could be envisioned to include the infor- mation on legal authority, financial capability and other points required in water quality management plans. Likewise, the “further studies” element of Level B plans could be comparable in detail to the continuing planning program to be established in water quality management planning. In fact, this may not happen for several reasons including: A.. lack of resources in Level B planning to work in detail over a large geographic area; B. lack of resources in Level B planning to address several functional areas in detail; C. specific provision of the Level B Guidelines that plans are to be based on readily available data (Sec. 111(F) (2)), which may be grossly deficient as regards certain quality aspects. Urban Studies Program Corps of Engineers The Urban Studies Program (12) of the Corps of Engineers (COE) provides a range of urban water resources plans compatible with the comprehensive urban development goals of the study region. Flood control, flood plain management, municipal and industrial water supply, wastewater management, bank and channel stabilization, lake, estuarine and ocean restoration and protection, recreation, and regional harbors and waterways in an integrated metropolitan setting are included in these studies where applicable. The program initiated in 1972 was the Corps’ response to the need for relevance of its programs in the context of urban America. Plans developed under this program were to be conceived in a manner to meet applicable Federal, State and local requirements for implementation. 3—34 ------- The wastewater management portion of the Urban Studies Program was formalized by an EPA-COE agreement first entered into in November 1974, and published in an extended version in the Federal Register Vol. 40 No. 11, January 16, 1975). This agreement defines the relationship between areawide waste treatment management planning conducted by both agencies, sets forth coordination and funding procedures for Corps Urban Studies in areas designated for areawide planning, and provides for Corps of Engineers technical assistance in areawide planning outside the Urban Studies Program. Major points made in this agreement are: Planning by the Corps of Engineers under the provisions of section 208 will be to the level of precision required by the Administrator for approval of any plan certified and submitted to him by any Gove!rnor under Section 208. The existence of an urban study resolution shall not preclude approval of a 208 designation for an area, nor shall approval of a 208 designation for an area preclude funding for an urban study. In no case shall there be a duplication of Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers funding for the same specific task in development of a wastewater manage- ment plan or planning process under Title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. All section 208 planning activities undertaken by the Corps of Engineers will be set forth. in a plan of study approved by the designated local planning agency, the State and the Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator. Such planning will be in accordance with all applicable laws, Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, criteria, and regulations, as well as applicable State and local laws and regulations. Technical assistance provided by the Corps of Engineers may include the development of alternative plans or portions of plans for meeting the provisions of section 208(h ). The de- cision to adopt or implement specific alternatives or pro- posals generated by this planning is the responsibility of the designated planning and the designated management agency (ies). The outputs of the Urban Study Program are sets of alternative urban water resources plans, priced and evaluated sections of each plan to meet short range (20 years) needs, phased early action programs and if appro- priate, proposals for Congressional authorization of selected pro)eCts within that early program publicly selected “best”. 3—35 ------- State, Regional and Local Water Plans In addition to the aforementioned Federal programs, states, regional authorities and local entities, large and small, are engaged in water and related land resources planning. State water plans range from framework type plans like those in North Carolina to detailed water plans as developed in Texas or California. While greatly varying in detail and scope, most state water planning is comprehensive in the sense of looking at most if not all of the facets of water planning simultaneously. Much regional and local water planning is single purpose such as planning by irrigation or drainage districts or water supply planning by metropolitan authorities or towns. Coordination of these planning programs with water quality management planning under Sec. 208 is needed if these state, regional or local plans have effects on the water quality directly through discharges or indirectly through changes in flow volumes or discharge locations, or if these plans are based on assumptions of existence and implementation of 208 plans. There is such a wide range in state, regional and local water planning that general rules of coordination and cooperation cannot be established. Each situation must be treated as unique and coordinating mechanisms developed for each specific case. Literature Review Water Policies for the Future , National Water Commission, June 1973. The report recommends that an expanded program of planning for regional water quality management (208) should be accomplished for the entire country coordinated with planning under the Water Resources Planning Act (Level B) (p. 84 and p. 107). Further, the report recommends amending the FWPCAA of 1972 with respect to regional or metropolitan waste management agencies to give the states authority for decisions regarding the form of local govern- ments (p. 108). The report recommends encouragement of coordinating mechan— isnis such as Title II river basin commissions in relating water and land use planning (Recommendation No. 10—1, p. 369). The emerging 208 program is described in the report on page 453. Report to the Congress by the National Commission on Water Quality , March 1976. The Commission recommended (VI, p.lO) that areawide waste management plans include an acceptable strategy for mitigating effects of discharges from irrigated agriculture. The report cites the reliance on planning as the strategy tool for relating the various programs under PL 92-500 but finds that it has not functioned in that manner (p. 29). State and Areawide Management (SAM) Guidance Memos , Environmental Protection Agency, various dates by subject (March 1975 to April 1976) The memos provide guidance by EPA on the entire spectrum of the 208 planning process including relationships of 208 with other programs, defi- nition of state roles, technical planning input, interagency coordination, and procedures for 208 planning in Indian reservations. 3—36 ------- Alternative Institutional and Financial Arrangements for Areawide Waste Treatment Management , Harvey 0. Banks, Consulting Engineer, Inc., and H. James Owen, Consulting Engineer, January 1974. The report describes the institutional and financial approaches to 208 planning in selected case study areas, and recommends actions by EPA to assist local and state governments conducting areawide planning. 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Seminar , Personal notes, November 6, 7, 1975 and February 2, 3, 1976. Jointly sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, and the University of Texas at Dallas. The seminars were conducted by selected faculty and EPA representatives to provide direction to formulation of 208 planning in designated areas. Presentations included technical discussions of source and nonpoint source pollutant control, and analyses of legal and institutional factors. Areawide Water Quality Planning and Management, A Proposal for Texas, yexas Texas Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, September 1974. The Texas Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations was cre- ated to provide research, advisory, and information capability in support of public officials arid private citizens for the purpose of improving cooperation between state and local governments and between the state and federal governments. This report was prepared in this context to provide a detailed analysis of Section 208 and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and to propose a coordinated state—regional—local program for implementing areawide planning in Texas. Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: An Assessment , Metcalf arid Eddy, Inc.,Western Regional Office. Study sponsored by the Environmental Pro- tection Agency, December 1973. The report details an investigation and assessment of promising, completed, and ongoing urban stormwater projects, representing state—of— the-art in abatement theory and technology. Although not exclusively pre- pared for areawide planning, the study was designed to provide planning input on control of stormwater pollution in planning and in the construc- tion grant program. A Method for Assessing Rural Non-point Sources and its Application in Water Quality Management , Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Councils of Governments, September 1975. The report presents a model to estimate quantity and quality of runoff from predominantly rural watersheds for use by planners/engineers. The model is used to compute land surface erosion and to provide load estimates of sediment, biochemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. The model can be used to select alternative cropping and management combi- nations to limit erosion and nutrient locations within acceptable, levels. 3—37 ------- REFERENCES 1. U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act , as amended, Public Law 92—500, 92nd Congress. October 18, 1972. 2. Grants to State and Designated Areawide Planning Agencies - Con- ditions, Policies and Procedures . 40 FR Part 35, Subpart A, Section 35.200 through 35.240 (40 FR 55321). November 28, 1975. 3. Policies and Procedures for Continuing Planning Process . 40 CFR Part 130 (40 FR 55334). November 28, 1975. • ! reParation of Water Quality Management Plans . 40 CFR Part 131 (40 FR 55343). November 28, 1975. 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning . Washington, DC. August, 1975. 6. U.S. Congress. Water Resources Planning Act . Public Law 89-80,89th congress. July 22, 1965. 7. U.S. Water Resources Council. Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning (Level B) ; for field evaluation; subject to revision. Washington, DC. March 1976. 8. principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources . 38 FR 24778. 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. State Continuing Planning Pro- cess Handbook . Washington, DC. December 1975. 10. U.S. Water Resources Council. Second Annual Report to the Congress of the United States on Level B (Section 209) Planning . Wash$ng- ton, DC. 1974. 11. U.S. Water Resources Council. Water Resources Council Policy State- ment No. 1, Water and Related Land Resources Planning . Washington, DC. July 22, 1970. 12. U.S. Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Urban Studies Program . 33 FR Part 264 (39 FR 24754). July 5, 1974. 13. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1975 Assessment of Water and Related Land Resources; Guidelines for Conducting Phase II Specific Prob- lent Analysis . September 1974. 14. Senate Report (Public Works Committee) No. 92—414, October 28, 1971 [ to accompany S. 2770]. 3-38 ------- 15. House Report (Public Works Committee) No. 92-911, March 11, 1972 (to accompany H.R. 11896]. 16. Senate Conference Report No. 92-1236, September 28, 1972 (to accompany S. 2770]. 17. House Conference Report No. 92—1465, September 28, 1972 [ to accompany S. 27701. 18. U.S. Congress. Safe Drinking Water Act . Public Law 93-523, 93rd con- gress. 1974. 19. Drinking Water Standards Implementation . 40 cFR Part 142 (40 FR 33232). August 7, 1975. 20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Guidelines for State and Areawide Water Quality Management Program Development . February 1976. 3-39 ------- CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES The conclusions and observations resulting from thi study are based in large measure upon investigations of two case studies. Criteria for selection of the case studies were: A. Relative completeness and availability of a Level B product prepared under the “New Approach”; B. Likelihood of access to the principal participants in the Level B study; C. Existence within the Level B study area of a desig— nated 208 area and areawide planning organization, preferably one which had at least completed a plan of study; D. Representativeness, to the extent possible, of other areas for which Level B studies have been or may be undertaken; E. Diversity with respect to character and interests of the area, hydrologic characteristics, and types of problems related to water quality and water use. Six possible case studies were evaluated. These are listed and briefly described in terms of the above criteria in Appendix A. The two case studies selected with approval of the Project Officer and Project Advisory Committee, were: Central Snake River Basin, Idaho, with the designated Boise 208 area; and Monongahela River Basin, West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, with the designated Pittsburg 208 area. Representatives of the staffs of federal, state and areawide agencies engaged in water and related land resource planning for each case study area were interviewed to elicit information concerning: A. Perceptions of the objectives, scope, level of detail and values of the several types of planning under consideration and the reasons therefor, particularly: Sec. 303(e), PL 92—500; Sec. 208, PL 92-500, for both designated and non— designated areas; Level B; USCE Urban or other studies (where applicable); 4—]. ------- B. Perceptions of the types, significance and extent of the interrelationships and interdependencies between water quality management planning under Sec. 303 (e) and Sec. 208, and Level B planning and other water resources planning activities; perceptions of the differences between these several types of planning and their results, and reasons therefor; C. Extent to which and the manner in which established water quality standards and the objectives and mandates of PL 92-500 are being or should be taken into account in water resources “quality” planning; D. Status of planning activities; E. Knowledge of WRC proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning (Level B) and their significance; F. Knowledge of EPA Water Quality Management Planning Regulations and Guidelines and their significance; G. Compatibility of Level B Guidelines and EPA Regu- lations and Guidelines; and, if considered incom- patible, what changes might be made to improve compatibility; H. Value of Level B planning to water quality management planning; I. Desirable or necessary inputs from Level B planning to 208 planning (designated and non-designated area), and vice versa; J. Coordination among the several planning agencies, present effectiveness and possible improvements; K. Use of common data base, projections and assumptions; L. Perceptions of differences in requirements for imple- mentation of Level B and 208 plans and their signif i- cance; 14. Extent to which nonpoint pollution sources could or should be taken into account in Level B planning; N. The desirable sequence of Level B v. 208 planning; 0. Public participation in planning; P. Availability of additional reference materials (and acquistion). 4—2 ------- CENTRAL SNAKE RIVER BASIN Overview Contrary to expectations when the Central Snake Case Study was selected for analysis, coordination between the several planning programs underway there was less than the good exan ple desired. Particularly, interagency relations appeared poor between the Department of Water Resources which is providing leadership for the Level B study and the Department of Health and Welfare which has water quality planning and management responsibilities. Information derived from the interviews conducted indicate that inadequate coordination of programs between the agencies has adversely affected planning done to date. The Level B study was undertaken in substantial part on account of water quality problems but does not address water quality for the apparent reason that the anticipat:ed input on this topic by the Department of Health and Welfare was iot provided, notwithstanding that the latter was a member of the Level B Study Team. Description of the Case Study Area The Snake River is the largest tributary to the Columbi River. It rises in Wyoming at Jackson Lake, within the boundaries of ( rand Teton National Park. The river winds west for a thousand miles, n ostly through Idaho, until joining the Columbia River in southwestern Washington. The Snake River Basin encozr asses an area of 108,000 square r len, including about 90 percent of Idaho’s total area. The Basin has vast resources of land and water and relatively small population. Considerable development has taken place in the Snake River Basin for hydroelectric power and irrigation. Flows are heavily appropriated. The Basin includes national parks, wilderness and primitive areas, and wild rivers which make it a nationally significant recreational area. It is also one of the few phosphate producing areas in the United States. The Snake River Basin includes parts of Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, giving rise to interstate considerations in the manage- ment of the Basin’s resources. The principal issues in interstate management are the control of water levels in Jackson Lake to meet recre- ational needs in Grand Teton National Park and irrigation needs in Idaho, consideration of recreational opportunities in the Hell’s Canyon area along Idaho’s western border, and provision of minimum streamfiows at the Washington border. Intrastate issues pertinent to Idaho include manage- ment of the Snake River Plain which is a major aquifer, and allocation of river flows between instream and other uses (1?). 4— .3 ------- The Snake River Basin has been divided for water resources planning purposes into three parts identified as the Upper, Central and Lower Snake Subareas (River Basins). The Central Snake River Basin encompasses the southwestern portion of Idaho and extends from near Twin Falls to below the confluence of the Snake and Powder Rivers. The Boise River is one of the principal tributaries to the Snake River in that reach. The economy of the Central Snake River Basin is largely based on agri- culture although Boise is a regional center for commerce and manufacturing. about a third of a million acres are presently irrigated within the area and additional large amounts of land are suitable for irrigation develop- ment if provided with a dependable water supply. Idaho’s most heavily urbanized area lies within the Boise River Basin. Larger communities there include Boise, Nampa and Caidwell which, in 1970, had populations respectively of 97,393, 20,786 and 14,219. Ada and Canyon ( unties, which include those communities, had populations respectively in 1970 of 112,000 and 61,288. The Type I Columbia-North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study which was completed in 1972 under the auspices of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission (PNRBC) pointed out the hydrologic complexity of the Snake River and the difficulties in water resources management due to the number of storage reservoirs and other developments as well as the extensive opportunities and needs for both consumptive and non—consumptive water use (9E ,F). It also noted the need for an integrated study of the Boise River to determine the adequacy and optimum use of water resources and control facilities. Water quality problems in the Central Snake River Basin identified in the Type I Study (lE,M) included the following: — potential for dritical low flow conditions brought about by ground water withdrawals; — critical seasonal oxygen problems in the Snake and Boise River Basins; — settling and floating solids below the mouth of the Boise River; — serious bacteriological pollution of the Snake River upstream from Payette, Idaho, particularly during summer months; — excessive aquatic growth caused by natural and man- made sources of nutrients; - need for updating water quality standards; - conflicts between water quality and developments for power, irrigation, and flood control; — erosion and sedimentation; 4—4 ------- — anaerobic decomposition of settled organic materials in Brownlee Reservoir; — logging practices; — mining practices; — heavy waste loads from Boise; — feedlot drainage in the Boise area; — irrigation return flows; and — critical low flows due to flow stoppages for maintenance work on the Lucky Peak Dam outlet. Large portions of the streams in the study area are water quality limited (3C). Major sources of pollution according to EPA (2T) include incomplete waste treatment by municipalities and industries, agricultural practices, livestock, and erosion caused by excessive irrigation. Storm water runoff is also a source of problems in the urbanized areas in and around Boise, Naxnpa and Caidwell. The most serious pollutants resulting from these sources are suspended solids, phosphorus, coliforms, and pesticides (3S). In spite of these conditions, EPA interpreted the water quality conditions in the Snake River Basin as near optimum level, given existing development and technology (lN). Contractor’s Observation No 1 . Serious problems exist in the Central Snake River Basin with respect to water quality, irrigation and other functions. The available water resources are insufficient to take advantage of opportunities for economic development and still meet water quality and other environmental objectives. Further irrigation development will deplete flows and simultaneously spur secondary economic activities and population increases. A significant portion of food processing, transportation and other indus- trial, commercial, and population growth stemming from new irrigation developments is likely to take place in the Boise area. Increased waste production from these added sources and increased water supply requirements would exacerbate water quality problems. Since waters of the Basin are largely water quality limited, any further development of irrigation would probably need to be accompanied with stringent regulatory controls to limit increases in nutrients, fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and other pol- lutants. At the minimum, proposals for development should give careful consideration to water quality impacts. Water quality management problems in the area are also re- lated to considerations of ground water management, use of available storage, and numerous aspects of water use both up- stream and downstream of the Central Snake River Basin. 4—5 ------- Several planning programs relevant to the purposes of the case study are now underway in or affecting the Central Snake River Basin including: o Central Snake Level B study; o Water quality management planning in nondesignated areas pursuant to the State Continuing Planning Process; o Water quality management planning in the designated area of Ma and Canyon Counties; o Boise Valley Study, a Corps of Engineers’ Urban Studies project; o State Water Plan; and o State Water Permit Administration. Description of the Central Snake Level B Study The Central Snake Level B Study had its genesis in the Type I study completed earlier. That study found that water pollution control needed an effective and coordinated regionwide program for waste control and treatment, flow regulation, and land use management (iF). Pursuant to the findings of the Type I Study, the PNRBC adopted a Plan of Study for preparing a Coordinated Comprehensive Joint Plan for the Pacific Northwest (CCJP) (11). The CCJP was intended to be a supplement to the Western U.S. Water Plan which was being prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior. It was also intended to provide a basis for the preparation of schedules of priority by the PNRBC and as a guide for implementation by the Commission’s member agencies. Level B studies were to be performed under the Plan of Study for a number of areas including the Central Snake River Basin. The Level B studies were to be conducted by federal-state study teams, organized on a state basis with state leadership, under the general management of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commissions. The Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission’s adopted Plan of Study for the Comprehensive Joint Plan identified the key points to be addressed in the several Level B planning programs. For the Central Snake, the Level B Study was to address instream uses, system effects of varying water uses, effect of improved water management on other water use functions, and water quality including the possibility of additional releases from storage for water quality purposes. Legal and institutional restraints on implementation of recommendations were to be considered (1M). The Plan of Study for the CCJP was modified by the PNRBC in 1973 due to funding limitations. However, the Central Snake Level B Study was continued with “...emphasis on natural environment, related lands, water quality, fish and wildlife, recreation, and irrigation” (1K). 4—6 ------- The Level B Study of the Central Snake is being performed by a federal-state study team chaired by a representative of the Idaho Depart- ment of Water Resources. The study team includes representatives of seven Idaho state agencies, eighteen federal agencies arid five other organi- zations. Included among these in addition to the Department of Water Resources are the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Idaho Division of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordination; Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmenta]. Protection Agency and PNRBC. Work on the Level B Study began in 1973. That year was devoted pri- marily to study organization. The major effort of planning and analysis took place in 1974. In 1975, effort was devoted largely to public par- ticipation and to the formulation of decisions based on the results of the public participation program. Because the study revealed resources were inadequate to meet the needs of the area, an interim report was pre- pared in February 1976 as the basis for an additional set of public hearings. At the time of the case study investigation, it was expected that the study would result in adoption of a plan for the Central Snake by the Idaho Water Resources Board on or about September 1976. The Central Snake River Basin Level B Study was well advanced at the time the case study investigation was performed. Technical studies and formulations of alternative plans were completed and the study report was being drafted. The major portions of the study effort remaining prior to its expected adoption by the Idaho Water Resources Board were a program of public hearings and revision of the plan as appropriate based on the hearings. The study has identified nearly one million acres of irrigable land in southwest Idaho as well as additional development opportunities for various purposes. Recommendations have been prepared concerning allo- cation of flows between instrearn and consumptive uses and with respect to various research, policy arid other actions. The Summary Report (1A) evidences the approach taken to water quality effects and the degree of specificity with which water quality consider- ations were treated. Recommendation No.4 of the Summary Report reflects awareness of the close relationship between water quality and water quan- tity. It states: Amend the Idaho Code to combine the programs of water quantity and water quality planning and administration into a single agency, except with respect to public health aspects of water quality. In support of the recommendation, the report’s discussion of its basis notes that: Separate planning and administration of water quantity and water quality ignores the fact that they are two directly interrelated physical properties of the same resource. They are so interrelated that actions in- volving one have direct effects upon the other. To attempt to solve problems involving either property 4—7 ------- of the water resource without considering the other, compounds problems. Different levels of funding and different planning schedules have not permitted water quantity planning and water quality planning to be fully integrated in the State Water Plan. Despite recognition of the close relationship between the quality and quantity of water which is required in planning either aspect, no explicit attention was given water quality in establishing allocations of quantity for various purposes. In explaining the recommended allocations of water for irrigation, municipal and industrial, and thermal uses, the Summary Report notes: No water allocation is made specifically for pollution control. Other recommendations in the water plan are based upon the assumption that the water quality goals of PL 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, will be met in Idaho. The Summary Report does not examine the validity of assuming water quality goals will be met concurrent with implementation of the recommended Level B plan. Identification of the water quality impact of the recommended plan is largely limited to a brief notation in a table of the Summary Report regarding general environmental effects that the recommended plan: Will probably decrease water quality some on Snake River because of river flow depletions. Any stream where instreain flows are provided, quality would be improved. Other mentions of water quality in the Summary Report include concern over radioactive contamination of the Snake River Aquifer; recognition that land use, mining, forestry and recreation have water quality aspects, and the need for general environmental protection. Brief mention is made of activities under Public Law 93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Summary Report does not present existing water quality standards, discuss present water quality, nor identify the types of water quality management programs needed to maintain and enhance water quality as economic de- velopmerit proceeds. Contractor’s Observation No. 2 The resolution of complex problems involving water quality was an important purpose for undertaking the Level B study. As conducted thus far, the Level B study does not treat water quality objectives or assess the potential extent and magni- tude of impacts on water quality from future resource developments. 4—8 ------- While the identification of developments and programs provided by the Summary Report are useful for water quality management planning, it is insufficient to assure coordinated plans can be developed. Either the water allocations of the Summary Report are taken as given, assuming whatever water quality treatment facilities and regulatory programs are necessary will be forthcoming regardless of cost, or water quality planning will identify constraints on development which will require modification of the Level B plan. In either event investments in both water quality control measures and water resources development will proceed without.integration of water quality and water quantity considerations. The serious nature of water quality problems identified in the Type I Study and their complex interrelationship to over- all water resources management was recognized by both the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission and the Idaho De- partment of Water Resources. In view ofthis, the failure to deal explicitly with water quality jeopardizes the credibility of the recommended plan as an acceptable pattern for managing the land and water resources of the study area. This is not to say that the proposed developments will be incompatible with water quality goals within the limitations of social and economic impacts, but only that the report does not show such compatibility exists or can be achieved. Subsequent to its adoption by the Idaho Water Resources Board as a part of Idaho’s state water plan, the plan for the Central Snake will be considered by the Pacific Northwest River Basins CommIsssIon for in- clusion in the CCJP. The interests of federal agencies and those of adjacent states are expected to result in efforts to modify portions of the plan having interstate implications prior to its adoption by the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. The presence of interstate consider- ations is acknowledged in the Summary Report with the following brief statement: The Snake River Compact, enacted in 1949, establishes the allocation of water between Idaho and Wyoming. No other compacts exist with regard to the allocation of the Snake River flows. The State of Washington has previously ex- pressed its desire to see a minimum flow of 22,000 cfs at the Idaho—Washington boundary on the Snake River. The recommended plan does not provide any minimum flow except that required under the provisions of the Federal Power Commission License for Hells Canyon Dam of 5000 cfs at Johnson’s Bar. Flows at the Idaho-WashingtO”l border will be less than 22,000 cfs at times. 4—9 ------- Contractor’s Observation No. 3 Plan formulations to be considered by the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission will consist of elements wholly in- ternal to the State of Idaho, the management of which is of little interest to other states, and elements of an interstate nature significantly affecting adjacent areas in other states. Intrastate elements may be thought suitable for incorporation in the CCJP without more than casual concern on the part of federal agencies or other states. However, elements which affect economic and environmental interests of other areas, such as major depletions in streamf low or developments which create or worsen water quality problems in downsream areas are likely to be contested and may require modification before incorporation in the CCJP. Operation of river basin commissions on the basis of con— census provides no way for authoritatively resolving differences between states. Long periods of negotiation between Idaho and its neighboring states will be necessary to arrive at mutually agreeable development plans, water quality standards or other common approaches to resource management. This impediment to early resolution of interstate issues results in part from the institutional nature of river basin commissions and in part from the encouragement which the use of state led Level B study teams gives to development of plans biased toward interests of the sponsoring state. Failure to resolve interstate issues prevents the availability of a firm plan for development of the entire basin and results in the forwarding to Congress of unresolved issues. Studies led by Federal agencies or by river basin commissions may find a lack of state participation which leads to similar prob- lems. Description of Water Quality Management Planning Programs There are several specific water quality management planning efforts underway in the Central Snake Level B study area including facilities planning, the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning program, the State’s continuing planning process, and the water quality portion of the Boise Valley Study. Facilities planning in Nampa has been completed with support from a Sec. 20]. grant and in Boise through Ma Council of Government’s 3c grant planning program. Planning supported by Sec. 201 grants was underway in the area for the cities of Caidwel]. and Meridian at the time of investigation (2N). 4-10 ------- The Ada Council of Governments and the Canyon Development Council jointly requested designation as a Section 208 water quality management planning agency in January 1975(2F). The designation was made by Governor Andrus on January 17, 1975(2H), and approved by EPA on April 2, 1975(2Q,R). A planning grant in the amount of $414,300 was awarded on June 9, 1975. The Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee submitted its Project Control Program in August 1975(28). Planning commenced upon EPA’s approval of the Project Control Program. The principal problems identified in the Project Control Program to be addressed in the study include, in order of priority, the following: — municipal treatment facilities; — major irrigation return drains; — instream flow maintenance; — individual waste disposal systems; - feedlots and dairies; — urban runoff; and — erosion control. The Technical Advisory Committee for the Ada/Canyon 208 study was formed in November 1975. It included representatives of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Idaho Department of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordination and Corps of Engineers as well as numerous other federal, state and local agencies. EPA is not a member of the Technical Advisory Committee. The Ada/Canyon water quality management planning program was still in its initial stages at the time the case study investigation was con- ducted. The technical products of the program at that time were limited to draft memoranda concerning the identification of major natural streams in the study area which may receive waste discharges and economic and demographic projections and analyses for the study area. Other aspects of the study underway included identification and analysis of existing water quality conditions, point source analysis, nonpoint source analysis, and land use analysis. Management planning tasks had not begun due to delays in developing suitable contractual arrangements with the agency’s general consultant. Contact with the Level B study was limited. Interviewees representing the Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee were aware that water resources planning was underway by the Idaho Department of Water Resources but were not familiar with the type or breadth of those studies. Effort 4—11 ------- to collect useful information from the Level B study program was limited to a request that ment,ers of the Technical Advisory Committee provide information they thought relevant. Contractor’s Observation No. 4 Interviewees at the Idaho Department of Water Resources indi- cated a general willingness existed on the part of the Level B study team to assist meeting 208 data and information requirements when and if such requirements are identified. However, Idaho representatives on the study team are not agressively attempting to encourage such arrangements. Several reasons may exist for the absence of more aggressive efforts to use common data. As noted, staff of the Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee were not fully aware of the Level B study. They also placed reliance on the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to provide such coordination in accord with their contract for services (2C). Delaying formation of the Technical Advisory Committee until after completion of the Project Control Program and its approval by the State and EPA at least deprived the Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee of whatever inputs the Level B study team might have made to the organization and approach to water quality planning. The inference drawn by those on the Technical Advisory Committee could easily have been that little value was placed on their potential contributions and that their role was one of assisting in details and lending authenticity to the planning effort. Contributions of the Level B study program to the Ada/Canyon waste treatment management planning program might have been considerably enhanced if the Idaho Department of Water Resources had been consulted on design of the Project Control Program and if the Technical Advisory Committee had been formed at an earlier date. Water quality planning at the state level in Idaho is and has been con- ducted by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and its predecessor agencies. In February 1976, a basinwide report pursuant to Sec. 303(e) which encompassed the Central Snake River Basin was completed. This report was not available at the time of the case study interviews. Reportedly, the document consists mainly of an accumulation of NPDES permit conditions for the area and provides little of the basis for more detailed planning. Integrating and coordinating water quality planning processes and plans with those of the Level B program is complicated by the fact that the Idaho Department of He lth and Welfare has not yet formulated an approach to meeting the requirements of the continuing planning process in the non— designated portions of the State. However, a draft outline ( ) concerning the water quality management program indicates that a significant portion 4—12 ------- of the proposed effort will be oriented toward the preparation of inven- tories and development of detailed technical plans. The outline does not indicate that the continuing planning process will either resolve dif- ferences which may exist between water quality objectives and the Central Snake Level B Study or provide another hydrologic framework in lieu of that to be provided by the Level B Study. Neither does it indicate sig- nificant reliance on any of the expected products of the Central Snake Level B Study or other Level B studies underway in Idaho. This raises the prospect that the required implementation of water quality management plans may be based on erroneous data with respect to future development, waste loads and flows. As noted previously, the Central Snake Level B Study did not investi- gate whether water quality considerations would or should constrain ex- ploitation of opportunities or irrigation or other economic development. A dilemma will be reached if water quality management planning finds the extent of development proposed in the Level B Study to require exorbitant costs for treatment facilities or unrealistically stringent regulatory controls to achieve water quality standards. In that event, either water quality standards can be lowered in accord with procedures for their revision (40 FR 130.17] or the proposed extent of water and land re- sources development can be reduced. Contractor’s Observation No. 5 . The responsibility for adoption of the Central Snake Study as part of Idaho’s State Water Plan is assigned constitutionally to the Idaho Water Resources Board. Implementation of the plan, at least insofar as water rights administraticn and certain policy matters are concerned, rests with the Idaho Department of Water Resources. It is relatively well assured that the Department of Water Resources will proceed quickly to reflect any adopted plan in their activities. Since water quality was not a serious concern in developing the recommended plan for the Central Snake River Basin, administration of water rights by the Department of Water Resources is likely to be similarly deficient of this concern. Water quality r anagement planning is performed at the depart- mental level by the Department of Health and Welfare. However, the principal responsibility rests upon the Governor for certi- fication and forwarding of plans approvable by EPA’s Regional Administrator. Each of the major departments involved has its historic con- stituencies with varying interests in irrigation, power, environ- mental improvement and other areas. The sum effect of the insti- tutional setting is to create a situation in which it will be particularly difficult to harmonize the proposed extent of develop- ment and water quality standards. Still, the dichotomy likely 4—13 ------- to be reached in Idaho does not depend on whether water quantity or water quality was performed first. It results from the lack of concurrent and comprehensive consideration, stemming at least in part from the fact that Level B studies were funded and staffed prior to beginning major water quality management planning activities. Unless reconciliation of all important economic and environ- mental objectives in water planning is explicitly built into the planning processes, securing compatible plans may be ex- tremely difficult due to institutional mechanisms which are not easily changed. Uncoordinated planning leads to reconcili- ation of differences in a competitive environment with each agency principally interested in promoting its own programs. This approach to reconciliation may have some benefits in theory to the extent it causes a thorough testing of the assumptions, procedures and results on either hide. However, from a practical standpoint the economic and other costs of such an approach may be large including mis-investments, foregoing of benefits from earlier use of renewable resources, and others apart from just planning costs. Many of the adverse results stemming from the production of differing plans affecting the same resource can be lessened or avoided by either carrying on the plans concurrently or elimi- nating the advocacy relationship through combining the planning processes. Support for eliminating either water quality manage- ment planning or Level B planning and expanding the remaining program was voiced by several of the interviewees. The Corps of Engineers, Ada Council of Governments and Canyon Develop- ment Council are jointly conducting a planning program for that portion of the Boise River drainage area downstream of Lucky Peak Dam as a part of the Corps of Engineer’s Urban Studies Program. This investigation, identi- fied as the Boise Valley Study, encompasses an area nearly identical to that of the Ada/Canyon 208 Study. The Study is oriented primarily toward water quality, flood control and water supply objectives (2G). The Boise Valley Study began in 1972. “Support” agencies for the Study include the Idaho Department of Water Resources; Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Idaho Department of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordination; and EPA as well as other State, federal and local agencies. The support agencies for the Boise Valley Study are not formed into a coi m ittee or work group structure or otherwise brought together on any regular basis. Meetings between study staff and agencies are carried out on an ad hoc basis as needs arise for coordination. The Corps’ Boise Valley Study was nearly complete at the time the case study investigation was conducted. Advance reports had been prepared and distributed concerning Barber Dam, the impact of subsurface sewage dis- posal in the Ada/Canyon County area, the effects of on—farm water management 4—14 ------- practices, selection and management of feedlot sites and land disposal of manure, and irrigation drain treatment. Alternatives had also been prepared for a second outlet from Lucky Peak Dam. Substantial progress had been made on reports concerning wastewater facilities plans for the Nampa—Cald— well area. Plan formulation was expected to take place in mid-1976. The products of the Boise Valley Study are considered by the Ada/Can- yon Waste Treatment Management Committee staff to be key inputs to their water quality management planning program. Since Ada and Canyon Counties are guiding and supporting both studies, planning approaches are relatively well integrated. The Boise Valley Study was particularly looked to for pro- vision of some facility designs, identification of stormwater treatment needs, monitoring, information on irrigated agriculture, and assistance in management planning. Interviewees representing the Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee cited the flexibility and compatible time frame of the Boise Valley Study as its principal advantages with respect to their program. Interpretations of Interrelationships Between the State’s Continuing Planning Process, Level B and Urban Studies Planning Programs The agencies responsible for leadership of the studies in the Central Snake River Basin have varying views regarding the nature and value of the other studies as reflected in the comments and attitudes of interviewees and the emphasis placed by each on assuring coordination with the other planning programs. Each agency views its planning program as being a significant factor in future resource nanagement decisions. In some cases, agencies did not view certain of the other programs as either relevant or important to their own programs. Idaho Operations Office, EPA, places considerable emphasis on the State’s continuing planning process for water quality management. Close relations are maintained with both the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and, in EPA’s view, with the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning program. However, EPA is not a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the latter study based on the concept that this constitutes a conflict with EPA’S responsibility for plan approval. EPA also works closely with the Corps on the Boise Valley Study which they view as being integrally related to the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning program. In contrast to the interest expressed in the specific water quality studies underway by EPA staff interviewed, EPA participates in the Central Snake Level B Study only on an occasional basis even though the agency is a member of the State-Federal study team for that effort. Similarly, EPA has elected to not be represented on the PNRBC’s Federal Technical Committee which is assisting in preparation of the CCJP and which provides much of the coordination among federal agencies involved in the Central Snake and other Level B Studies and water resource related planning efforts of other types. 4—15 ------- Staff members of EPA’s Idaho Operations Office viewed the Ada/Canyon water quality management study and the Boise Valley Study as similar in nature excepting the broader consideration of the latter for flood control and other purposes. Similarly, the State’s continuing planning process was seen as the logical vehicle for preparing the water quality element of the Central Snake Level B Study subject to constraints on the com- patibility of the programs. Desirable linkages identified between the programs included common economic, population and land use projections, and common goals and objectives. The most important aspects of the Level B Study were considered to be recommendations concerning minimum stream— flows and provision of information on land use which would be helpful in designing measures for control of nonpoint sources of pollution. Although recognizing these linkages and that they are not being developed, EPA has made an apparent effort to require water quality management efforts be more closely aligned with the other programs: Contractor’s Observation No. 6 Advisory committees required under EPA regulations for guidance of efforts to prepare water quality management plans are intended in part to provide “a mechanism for meaningful and significant results from local, State, intrastate, and Federal units of government (40 CFR, Part 130, Sec. 130.16(c)]. Designated plan- ning organizations are required to provide for representation on the committee of the state [ 40 CFR, Part 130, Sec. 130.16(d)] which also has responsibility for approval [ 40 cFR, Part 131, Sec. 131.20(f)] of the plan which is to be prepared. States are also encouraged to submit plans for review by EPA prior to their adoption to minimize potential objections [ 40 cFR, Part 131, Sec. 131.20(d)]. These regulations indicate that designated planning organi- zations and states are to seek meaningful inputs from federal sources and federal review of plans prior to their adoption by the State. In view of the fact that State participation in both development and approval of plans from designated areas is re- quired, EPA’s election not to participate on the advisory com- mittee for the Ada/Canyon Counties 208 planning effort appears inconsistent. EPA’s failure to participate aggressively in other related planning programs deprives the water quality management planning process of early confrontation of differences between water quality and water quantity planning which might be pursued effectively by EPA through their involvement in all of the water quality planning programs ongoing in the area as well as through participation in the Central Snake Level B study, Pacific North- west River Basins Commission, and Water Resources Coui cii. More broadly, EPA’s lack of substantial participation is in- dicative of the low priority given planning as opposed to grant administration, regulation, and other activities. 4—16 ------- The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare places considerable im- portance on both the designated and non—designated aspects of the con- tinuing planning process and on the Boise Valley Study. The agency is a member of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning study arid attends on a regular basis. It is also a support agency for the Boise Valley Study and maintains close coordination with that effort. The Central Snake Level B Study is viewed by staff of the Idaho De- partment of Health and Welfare interviewed as overly oriented toward irrigation development and largely a presentation of already available information. It was described as deficient in consideratior of the economic and environmental consequences of decisions on instreaxn flows. Because of this, the Level B Study was not described as being either vital or particularly useful to the programs managed by the Department of THéalth and Welfare. The Department does not expect to encourage the use of hydrology or other information developed for the Level B Study in the Ada/Canyon 208 Study. Little serious consideration has yet been given by the Department of Health and Welfare as to how the results of the Level B Study might be useful to the State’s continuing planning process except as it may provide information on, and inventories of, land use. Coordination among the several planning programs and agencies was seen by the Department of Health and Welfare interviewee as important to avoid duplication in development of the State’s continuing planning process for water quality management. In lieu of the Department’s participation in other studies, materials leading to establishment of the State’s con- tinuing planning process were to be widely distributed to other organi- zations for their information. Little concern has been evidenced by the Department of Health and Welfare with implementation aspects of the Central Snake Level B Study or the adequacy of the Ada/Canyon waste treatment management plan. Em- phasis is directed primarily to meeting immediate requirements relating to permits, grant administration and other matters. The Level B program was not viewed by the interviewee representing the Department as the proper forum for the development of implementation arrangements within which plans meeting Section 208 requirements would be developed. Overall coordination between the Central Snake Level B Study and activities of the Department of Health and Welfare is conside ed in- effective by the latter. However, this is not seen by the Department as particularly adverse to water quality planning and management activities since the Central Snake Level B Study does not address water quality directly and its level of detail is thought to make the study largely ir- relevant to water quality management planning. Contractor’s Observation No. 7 The approach taken to coordination by the Department of Health and Welfare does little to encourage closer integration of planning processes or resolve differences in the resultant 4—17 ------- plans. Departmental interest, at least on a sustained and significant basis, is limited to water quality planning, with little interest in the Central Snake Level B study or concern with any threat which it might pose to the attainment of water quality objectives. Apparently, this attitude is based upon an assumption that the Level B Study plan will not lead to immediate implementation or be adhered to rigidly ix future decision-making. As a result, no substantial effort has been made to influence the Level B Study with regard to its treat- ment of water quality, to identify useful products of the Level B Study, or to stimulate coordination between the Ada/canyon Counties designated planning organization and the Level B Study. This lack of positive action to encourage coordination furthers the development of conflicts in water resources manage- ment planning. Many reasons doubtless contribute to the position taken by the Department of Health and Welfare with respect to water quality! water quantity coordination. Reasons put forth by interviewees included a shortage of funds and personnel to participate and the irrelevance of the Level B Study due to its lack of detail and new information. Other reasons not expressed by inter- viewees may exist which are more subjective and more complex. Attitudes toward coordination ar ’ probably affected by the sig- nificant disparity in size between the Department of Water Resources and Water Quality Bureau of the Department of Health and Welfare and the consequent difference in their capability to undertake and carry out programs. While the Department of Health and Welfare as a whole is larger than the Department of Water Resources, the Bureau of Water Quality comprises only a few professional staff. In addition to a staff of about a hundred, the Department of Water Resources has extensive back- ground in water rights administration, state—federal relations and other relevant areas whereas the State’s water quality planning program is just being established. In contrast to their size relationship, the Bureau of Water Quality Manage- ment has responsibility for the administration of large amounts of money and for carrying out a planning program with close ties to local public officials. Given these conditions, the reconunendation of the Department of Water Resources that water quality and quantity planning be combined in a single agency provides a strong stimulus to rivalry and withdrawal. Attitudes toward coordination are also likely to be influ- enced by the breadth of understanding of the several involved programs. In the case of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, this lack of understanding may constitute a signi- ficant impediment as exhibited by the little concern for im- plenientability of water quality management plans, unfamiliarity with the existence of the Principles and Standards, and unaware- ness of the requirements for coordination with Level B planning 4-18 ------- explicit in the regulations for the State continuing plan— fling process. Whatever the full range of reasons for failure of the Department of Health and Welfare to participate aggressively and constructively in the Central Snake Level B Study may be, any adverse comments by the Department on the failure of the study to appropriately consider water quality will be rebutted with a recounting of their lack of participation. The likely outcome of such an exchange would be a further decline in inter- agency relations, making reconciliation of program objectives more difficult. The Department of Water Resources provides State leadership for the Central Snake Level B Study and views that program as a principal part of the Idaho water resources planning program. The Department also partici- pates in other studies described including attendance at meetings and pro- vision of some inputs. The Boise Valley Study, for example, is using hydrologic information prepared by the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Health and Welfare expects to use population infor- mation in its continuing planning process which was developed by Boise State University for the Department of Water Resources. The Department of Water Resources views the Boise Valley Study as very similar in nature to the Level B Study excepting the Boise Valley Study’s greater emphasis on implementation. The Ada/Canyon water quality management planning study is viewed as important, primarily because of its potential effect on agriculture. Information from the Central Snake Level B Study is seen by the De- partment of Water Resources as useful for water quality management plan- ning, particularly with respect to water supply, potential agricultural development, population forecasts, environmental aspects other than water quality such as instream flows and land use, summarization and comparison of prior studies, and provision of inventories. In general, the Depart- ment views the Central Snake Level B Study as providing the overall frame- work within which water quality and other functional plans will be developed. Contractor’s Observation No. 8 One of the serious constraints on the mutual exchange of information and support between Level B and water quality management planning programs stems from the differing views of the potential use of the Level B study which are held by the Departments of Water Resources and Health and Welfare. Whereas the former sees the Level B study as the broad framework for n re detailed studies, the latter finds it largely irrelevant to their objectives. Both views are probably influenced by the types of subjective considerations mentioned earlier and not wholly correct. 4-19 ------- The Central Snake Level B Study is relevant to water quality planning notwithstanding its scant attention to that topic. Much of the basic work is useful for other purposes as sug- gested by the Department of Water Resources. However, the plan formulated is of lesser value in that it provides only one interpretation of the basic data on opportunities and needs, largely uninfluenced by real concern for water quality. To make the Level B plan wholly usable as a framework requires subordinating water quality management to other objectives. In spite of its views as to the value of the Central Snake Level B Study for water quality planning purposes, the Depart— merit of Health and Welfare may have little choice in using its results. Section 130.34(c) of the Policies and Procedures for Continuing Planning Process [ 40 CFR 1301 require that where a Level B Study is complete or underway, the State or designated planning agency provide where appropriate for integrating their water quality management planning with certain of its outputs including “existing and projected future water withdrawal arid consun tive demand over a 20—year period.” As water quality and water quantity are inextricably related in the Central Snake River Basin, integration would appear required. This situation suggests that either Level B studies must give consideration to water quality when projecting future water withdrawals or water quality planning must aocommodate whatever results are obtained. EPA’s instructions in Section 130.34 for water quality planning to incorporate the development of projected water demands applies only to cases where no Level B study has been initiated. The Corps of Engineers attends and participates in both the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning study and the Central Snake Level B study team efforts. The Corps is also represented on PNRBC’s Federal Technical Committee. The Level B Study is viewed by the Corps as being related to the Boise Valley Study through the use of common information on instrealn flow needs and hydrology. An ecologic model developed under a joint contract for the Department of Water Resources, Corps and Department of Health and Wel- fare will also be used in the Boise Valley Study to identify impacts of alternative potential future conditions. Corps staff view the Ada/Can- yon water quality management planning study as particularly important because of its close relationship to the Boise Valley Study. The land use plans used in the latter are those prepared by Ada Council of Govern— ments and the Canyon Development Council for their respective areas. The mechanisms available for coordination among the several agencies and programs are thought by the Corps to be adequate. 4—20 ------- Contractor’s Observation No. 9 The most effective coordination between the several activi- ties underway, at least as perceived by the investigators in this case study, was that achieved by the Corps for the Boise Valley Study. Interestingly, organization of that study does not include formal committees or task forces and meetings with supporting agencies are held on an ad hoc arid “as needed” basis. This suggests that organizational form may be less important than other factors in achieving coordination. In the case of the Boise Valley Study, success in coordination was apparently achieved because: A. a conscientious and sustained effort is made by project staff to effect coordination; B. related agencies and- local officials view the study as resulting in near term implementation and therefore of importance; and C. project staff have a relatively good under- standing of each of the other related planning programs. Staff members responsible for the Ada/Canyon water quality management planning study viewed the State’s water resources planning progam as pro- viding a general guide for their efforts and expect to use information con- cerning instream flow needs, hydrology, irrigation development and waste water problems. However, no specific arrangements for obtaining and applying information from the Level B Study are included in the project control program or other documents reviewed. The State’s water quality planning products, mainly the basinwide plans, were viewed by local planning staff as insufficiently detailed to be of significant value in their program. The designated area planning program was expected to provide the major source of information for development of the Department of Health and Welfare’s statewide program for management of nonpoint sources of pollution rather than the State providing leadership to local agencies. While the project staff considered the nature of the Boise Valley Study’s final product to be unclear, that study was regarded as an impor- tant adjunct to the local water quality management planning program. In view of the project staff, lack of understanding of the water quality management planning program on the part of others was thought to be a significant impediment to coordination of planning. 4—21 ------- Coordination Arrangements A number of mechanisms exist by which the several studies under- way in the Central Snake River Basin might be made complementary and mutually supportive.: among others, these include the sponsorship of the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, cross membership on study committees, legislatively mandated coordination meetings between Idaho’s Departments of Water Resources and Health and Welfare, and review processes maintained by various agencies. River basin commissions have a significant responsibility to: Serve as the principal agency for the coordination of Federal, State, interstate, local and nongovernmental plans for the development of water and related land resources in its area, river basin, or group of river basins (Sec. 201 (b), PL 89—80). In the case of the Central Snake Level B Study, the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission had adopted the !1 ’pe I study which pointed out the need for investigation, and prepared and adopted the plan of study. The Commission is chaired by a presidential appointee and provided with pro- fessional staff. A federal technical committee operating under the aegis of the Commission and having coordinating responsibilities attended most or all of the meetings of the State—federal study team for the Central Snake Level B Study. Unfortunately, advance budgeting information from federal agencies which is one of the principal coordinating techniques intended to be used by the Commission is ineffective insofar as EPA administered programs are concerned since EPA does not regularly provide budget information to the Commission. Nevertheless, given the Commission’s keen awareness of the couplexity of the Central Snake River Basin and close relationship between water quantity and water quality, effective elimination of water quality from the Central Snake Level B Study should have been apparent to the Commission or at least to its professional staff. No documen- tation collected during the case study investigation indicated any strong effort by the Commission to reinforce coordination or modify the Level B Study program so as to include water quality. As noted in the descriptions of the various studies underway in the Central Snake River Basin, several agencies were either prime or supporting participants in each effort excepting the state continuing planning process which has not depended yet on coordination meetings or inputs from others. One of the agencies, the Division of Budget, Policy Planning and Coordi- nation has specific coordination responsibilities. The Idaho Departments of Water Resources and Health and Welfare are required by law to meet quarterly for purposes of coordination. Reportedly, such meetings have not focussed on coordination of the Level B and water quality management planning programs. 4—22 ------- Contractor’s Observation No. 10 Representatives of the Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee interviewed were generally acquainted with water resources planning being performed by the Department of Water Resouces within the context of a state water planning program. However, they were unfamiliar with the concept of Level B Plan- ning. A considerable portion of the first interview was spent with the interviewees describing the general institutional framework for water resources planning, the role of the Water Resources Council and the river basin commissions in that frame- work, levels of studies, basic concepts of the Principles and Stand- ards and “old” v. “new” approaches. The lack of background on the part of the interviewee largely frustrated specific dis- cussion of opportunities for coordination between the programs or useful information which Level B studies might provide local planning efforts. It also apparently reflects a minimal inter- agency exchange of information and views with respect to plan- ning. It is unrealistic to expect effective coordination to be originated through the local water quality management planning program staff until they have gained familiarity with the Level B program and developed a more comprehensive background in the various related planning programs. Level B Inputs to Water Quality Management Planning There are no specific plans to extensively use inputs from the Central Snake Level B Study in water quality planning and management efforts at either the local or State level in Idaho. Moreover, interviews disclosed no strongly expressed desire to identify ways to make the several programs mutually supportive excepting as the Boise Valley Study is concerned. Documents preliminary to conduct of the State’s water quality management program (3B,C) and the Ada/Canyon Counties water quality management plan- ning program (2A,B,F) are largely devoid of any mention of the Central Snake Level B planning program. This lack of awareness or coordination went unchallenged in the review of materials conducted by EPA (2Q,RS,T) and the Department of Health and Welfare (2H,K,M). Contractor’s Observation No. 11 Unless EPA is insistent on explicit treatment of the Level B study outputs, the plan of work for the State’s continuing planning process is likely to be deficient in that respect. 4—23 ------- EPA carried out an extensive review of proposals for designation pursuant to Sec. 208(a) of PL 92—500. In the case of the Ada/Canyon Counties water quality management planning program, several reviews were performed of the designation request, the application for planning funds, the Project Control Plan, and milestone reports. In spite of EPA’s member- ship on the Pacific Northwest River Basin Conunission and the Central Snake Level B Study and EPA’s recognition of quantity/quality problems, no ob- jection was raised to the failure of those documents to comprehend the Level B Study or specify coordination with that program. Contractor’s Observation No. 12 The lack of coordination between the Central Snake Level B Study and the water quality management planning underway at the State and local level in the Basin cannot be attributed to any single agency or level of government. The lack of coordination was apparent at each step and should have been well known at least to EPA and State personnel with responsibility with water quality management planning programs, the State-Federal Study Team for the Level B Study, the Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission and the Water Resources Council. Nothing in the Water Resources Council’s proposed guidelines for Level B planning or EPA’s guidelines and regulatiorLs for the State’s continuing plannning process prevents such situations from occuring again with the exception of EPA’S requirements to use certain outputs of any ongoing or completed Level B studies. In the case of the Central Snake, even that instruction has so far been insufficient. In 1ementation of Plans Each of the several studies underway addresses implementation to some extent. However, the Boise Valley Study is addressing implementation in less detailed fashion than is required for approval of plans in accord with Section 208 of PL 92-500, and in n re detail than the Level B Study. The Central Snake Level B Study is unspecific with regard to implementation other than with respect to the identification of needed legislation and the activities of the Department of Water Resources. No effort is underway to coordinate in lementation planning for these and other related activi- ties in Idaho. 4—24 ------- Monongahela River Basin The Monongahela River Basin comprises an area of 7,384 square miles in northern West Virginia, northwestern Maryland and southwestern Pennsyl- vania; the drainage area in Maryland is comparatively sn all in comparison with the portions of the watershed in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Monongahela River flows generaly northerly from its headwaters in Randolph, Upshur and Lewis Counties, West Virginia, joining the Allegheny River at Pittsburgh to form the main stem of the Ohio River. The Ohio then flows westerly and southwesterly to its confluence with Mississippi River at Cairo, Illinois. Major metropolitan areas are the Pittsburgh and Johnstown Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMsA), in Pennsylvania, and Clarksburg, Fairmont and Morgantown, West Virginia. Population of the Basin, in- cluding all of the Pittsburgh SMSA and Johnstown SMSA was reported to be about 3,200,000 in 1970 (4.E., page 22). Both SMSA’s encompass substantial areas outside the Basin proper; City of Johnstown is located outside the Basin. The Basin has been described in the following terms (4.E., page 22): The Monôngahela River Basin is located in the Appalachian Plateau. The terrain is rugged and valleys are deep and narrow. Flat areas are limited to narrow flood plains and some terraces and flattopped hills. Elevations of the basin range from approximately 4,600 feet above sea level in the headwaters of the Cheat River to about 700 feet above sea level at Pittsburgh, giving a maximum relief of nearly 4,000 feet. The climate is temperate, with an annual precipitation ranging from 36 to 70 inches. Most of the agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and urban and industrial centers are located in the western half of the basin. Forested lands are more concentrated in the eastern half. Hay and livestock are the chief agricul- tural products. Much coal mining has occurred in the basin, and coal extraction continues to be important in the western third in the general vicinity of the West Fork River, the main stem of the Mononga.hela River, and in parts of Preston County, W. Va., and Somerset County, Pa. Industries are concentrated along the main stem of the Monongahela River with most of the steel industry located in the lower reach. In 1840, private interests began operation of the first navigable river lock system in continuous use through- out the country. It was primarily for transport of the large quantities of whiskey produced in the basin. After the Whiskey Rebellion (sic) this navigation system provided easy transport of coal, contributing to the establishment 4-25 ------- of the steel industry at Pittsburgh. For several decades, the Monongahela navigation system has carried more coal tonnage than any other comparable navigation system. The northerly part of the Basin encompasses the southerly portion of the designated Pittsburgh 208 areawide planning area which comprises the Counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmore— land including and surrounding the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh, Pen- nsylvania. The portion of the 208 area within the Basin comprises relatively small proportions of both the Basin and the 208 area. As of June 1976, this was the only designated 208 area within the Basin. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission has been designated as the areawide planning agency. Monongahela River Basin is within the jurisdiction of the Ohio River Basin Commission (ORBC) which was established by Executive Order 11578 on January 13, 1971, under the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, PL 89-80. As described hereinafter, ORBC completed and published, in July 1975, the “Monongahela River Basin Water and Related Land Resources Level B Study Report” for submission to Governors and Heads of Federal agencies for official camnents. The Level B Plan has been incorporated, as the “First Step”, in ORBC’s Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan which ORBC must prepare and keep current pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Level B studies by ORBC are pending for the Allegheny River Basin and for the Ohio River Main Stem. Monongahela River Basin is within the area encompassed by the inter- state compact which created the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Com- mission (ORSANCO). However, the organization has traditionally confined its interests and activities largely to the Ohio River Main Stem below Pittsburgh - For purposes of this report, staffs of the following planning organi- zation active in Monongahela River Basin were interviewed (interview dates are given in parentheses): Ohio River Basin Conunission (March 8, 1976); Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (March 10, 1976); Conmm nwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environ- mental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management (March 23, 1976, by telephone); Comonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environ- mental Resources, Bureau of Resources Prograluning (March 11, 1976); State of West Virginia, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources (March 9, 1976); 4-26 ------- State of West Virginia, Office of the Governor, Office of Federal—State Relations (March 9, 1976); U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District (March 10, 1976); Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (March 26, 1976). In addition, the Ohio River Basin Coordinator, EPA, and the Executive Director, ORSANCO, were interviewed on March 8, 1976. Names of the individuals interviewed are listed under acknowledgments in the Preface. Level B Plan The Monongahela River Basin Water and Related Land Resources Level B Study Report is stated by ORBC to be “. - .the first study completion in the nation using the ORBC’ s Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP) method- ology and Continuous Planning System (CPS) which is completely compatible with Water ResourCes Council’s New Approach to Level B Planning”. Level B funding (total amount $261,000) for ORBC management and coordination was provided in September 1973, the Plan of Study was adopted in January 1974, and ORBC approved the final report in July 1975, well within the two year period prescribed by the “new approach”. Nearly all of the contributions of time, effort, and existing information by governmental organizations, private industry, and interested citizens were provided without reimburse- ment from Level B funds. The Level B study did not encompass the develop- ment or collection of any ftew data. Prior planning of particular interest is the Ohio River Comprehensive Survey, Main Report, Volume 1, August 1969, by the Ohio River Basin Compre- hensive Survey Coordinating Committee. appendix D,Volume V, Ohio River Comprehensive Survey, Water Supply and Water Pollution Control, June 1967, was prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior, (then) Federal Water Pol- lution Control Administration. The major regional issues are described as follows (4.E. pages 5-6): The water pollution existing in the i.fonongahela River Basin is a detriment to current and future economic development. Improvement will lead to a better overall environmental quality, cleaner water supplies, and mere recreational opportunities. The large amount of coal available in the Monongahela Basin has been a mixed blessing for the local people. Appalachian coal has been a major source of income and employment, and is currently contributing toward making the United States self-sufficient in energy. Obtaining this coal from either strip or shaft mines has also 4—27 ------- resulted in serious environmental damages mostly by polluting the streams with acid and sediment. Existing enforcement programs, if sufficiently funded, can con- trol problems emanating from active mines. However, abandoned mines are causing major pollution, aesthetic and other problems, and there is no adequate program for abatement measures——— In addition to the energy and water quality problems, other major issues include balancing a recreation de— mand, heaviest in Pittsburgh, with a supply primarily available in the upper portion of the basin; eliminating flood damages in cities such as Pittsburgh, Pa., and Weston, W.. Va., which have major existing flood plain developments that would be too costly to relocate; and consideration of the inundation of environmental and agricultural lands by the proposed lakes of Rowlesburg, Davis and Stonewall Jackson. Other needs and problems affecting the liononga- bela Basin were considered; however, most of these had solutions which were easily determined, or the problem was not of a nature considered applicable to a Level B Stud The zionongahela River Basin has a large demand for water supply in the future. The existing 7 day/lO year minimum low flow was used as a benchmark to maintaining aquatic life. If this flow is to be maintained, for water quality and aquatic life purposes, additional storage for low flow augmentation for water supply will be necessary to meet increased demands such as municipal, industrial, and power cooling requirements, and potential coal conversion facilities. 4 4n estimate of these demands indicates that if the current trend for development supporting energy re- quirement continues, the current 7-day/lO year low flow would be reduced by approximately 40 percent by 2020 at the mouth of the Monongahela River--- Level B planning Objectives - The Level B Plan report states that the objectives are (page 20): 1. 2’ provide decision makers at all levels of govern- ment with that information necessary to clearly identify problems and offer alternative solutions to direct, manage, and implement action for the development or protection of the Monongahela River Basin’s water and related land resources. 4—28 ------- 2. To develop a plan which will be multipurpose in scope, considering all facets of resource rnanagenient, and offering a time phased array of viable alternatives to delineated resource problems in the basin. The following two objectives, as stated in the Water Resources Council’s Principles and Standards for Planning, were used as primary planning objectives in the Monongahela effort: 1. To enhance national economic development in in- creasing the value of the Nation’s output of goods and services and improving national economic ef- ficiency. 2. To enhance the quality of the environment by the management, conservation, preservation, creation, restoration, or improvement of the quality of cer- tain natural and cultural resources and ecological systems. The specific planning objectives were: (1) to ascer- tain critical areas of overbank flooding, inadequate drainage, and soil erosion damages; (2) to assess present and future needs of municipal, industrial, and rural water supply deficiency; (3) to assess eritical reaches of streams which do not conform to established stream standards and to note areas of unsuitable groundwater; (4) to assess needs for water-based recreation facilities; (5) to assess the need for further investment in water borne transpor- tation; (6) to assess the needs for fish and wildlife enhancement and archeological and natural areas pre- servation; and (7) to assess the current and future basinwide and transfer needs for power. Planning Process — This is described in the Level B Plan report as follows: The plan formulation process began with the identification of needs, problems, and potential alternatives using ex- isting information provided by various planning agencies. Where gaps or conflicts existed the needs and problems were estimated or evaluated by the Plan Formulation Com- mittee. Simultaneously, information was gathered relating to existing and potential land and water resources. This resource information was displayed on a series of maps and overlays. 4—29 ------- A second step of the plan formulation process was convening of a Working Board consisting of representatives from the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Army and Interior, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Planning accom- plished by this Working Board was based on the accounting sheets and maps already developed and the Board’s combined knowledge of the basin’s needs, problems, and potential al- ternatives (solutions), and the basin’s land and water re- sources. Based upon individual State and Federal agency analysis of the alternatives and their representative’s knowledge of the area, the Working Board developed a First Cut Plan by considering approximately 1,000 known alternatives, the objectives of National Economic Development and Environ- mental Quality (from the WRC’s Principles and Standards), and planning objectives previously adopted by the Plan Formulation Coirnnittee. This analysis proce&ed syste- matically by functional category within each drainage basin. Conflicts and complements among functions were considered during the planning process. The beneficial and adverse effects in the four Principles and Standards Accounts were considered. Following completion of the First Cut Plan Formulation by the working Board, the full Plan Formulation Committee continued with the plan formulation process by examining the interfunctional and interstate requirements, depen- dencies, and opportunities. Consideration was given to State planning objectives and to insuring compatibility with completed or underway state planning efforts. Land and water resources were examined from the standpoint of the tradeoffs that could be made by adopting various al- ternative plans. The public participation effortr-was intensified follow- ing the development of the First Cut Plan. Recommendations from this effort were considered in developing the final recoimnended plan. The Citizens’s Advisory Task Force pro- vided input at all phases of the process through review comments and regular attendance at plan formulation meetings. During the plannir period, the Study Direction and Plan Formulation Committee met eight times (4.M.) and the Water Quality Work Group twice (4.L.). Four planning workshops were held at various locations in the the Basin (4.K.) Projects and programs included ir the Recommended Level B Plan repre- sent a consensus of the Ohio River Basin Commission members. To assist in applying WRC’ s Principles and Standards to the Level B Planning Process, ORBC retained the consulting firm of Gannett, Fleming, 4-30 ------- Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Engineers (GFCC) of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to develop applicable methodology. The GFCC final report, Monongahela River Basin Principles and Standards Analysis, was submitted in December 1974 and with some additions and changes, became the Principles and Standards analysis included in the ORBC Level B report. The GFCC report was prepared in two parts. Part II describes the analysis performed during the Monongahela Level B Study and Part I explains and critiques the analysis. The report states (4.F., p. 1.1) that the analysis was performed in six steps as follows; comments following the de- scriptions taken from the GFCC report are by the principal investigators for this report: 1. Specify components of the objectives relevant to the planning setting; Performance of this step assumed that ongoing studies reflected the existing needs and problems in the Basin. Table Ml (4.F. p. 11.9) pre- sents a listing of all projects, programs and studies considered for in- clusion in the plan. 2. Evaluate resource capabilities and expected conditions without any plan; Projects which were either existing, underway or already planned were considere4 to constitute the “without plan conditions.” It is not clear that Part II contains a description of the “without” conditions. 3. Formulate alternative plans to achieve varying levels of contributions to the specified components of the ob- jectives; Worksheets are presented for description of each project by various study participants as well as summary sheets for use by the analyst in standardizing and condensing the detailed descriptions. The critique points out the need for a more objective basis for characterizing projects. Step 3 also includes the allocation of projects to the National Eco- nomic Development (NED) objective, Environmental Quality (EQ) objective, or both, beginning with single project-single need situations and progressing through single project—multi need situations and then to more complex cases. Allocation of the alternative plans was subjective and based on each project’s general characteristics. All projects or programs included in the NED and EQ plans were included in each alternative plan prepared. 4. Analyze the differences among alternative plans which reflect different emphasis aircng the specified compo- nents of objectives; 4—31 ------- This step provides for identifying and comparing the contributions to each of the four accounts by the projects included in the various alterna- tive plans. 5. Review and reconsider, if necessary, the specified com- ponents for the planning setting and formulate additional alternative plans as appropriate; This step provides for reviewing the several plans with respect to the system formed by each and review of the available information for each included project. The review is to assure no patently unsuitable combi- nations of projects occur and, to the extent possible, make any modifica- tions to the plans to improve optimality. 6. Select a recommended plan from among the alternative plans based upon an evaluation of the trade-offs between the objectives of national economic develop- ment and environmental quality and considering, where appropriate, the effects of the plans or regional development and social well-being. The Recommended Alternative(RA) plan was constructed of projects which appeared in both the NED and EQ plans and others selected by judgeinent which appeared in one or another of the plans. Where decisions were difficult and no basis could be found for decision, the plan was left incomplete with the conflict pointed out. The critique of the process by GFCC points out problems which were en- countered and makes recommendations. Problems noted by GFCC with respect to the Principles and Standards include: o It is difficult to grasp the distinction between externalities under the NED Account and the effects under the Regional Development Account. ° The NED objective does not adequately treat water quality as an NED component and seems to view water quality control as a strictly EQ component. o It is difficult to prepare Table 1 as described in the Principles and Standards; its purpose is not clear. o The organization of the Principles and Standards, as presented in the September 10, 1973, Federal Register, is confusing; a Table of Contents would be an improve- ment. GFCC also noted the variations of level in information available from agencies concerning projects and programs. 4—32 ------- Recommendations made by GFCC include provision of the following guidelines: o An effort should be made to eliminate weak projects and programs from consideration as early as possible. o Many potential projects and programs are not selected for any plan; the PP1 and PP3 display sheets for these excluded projects and programs nee& not be reproduced, although this may tend to conceal a valid part of the analysis. o Some attempt should be made to list directly certain beneficial and adverse effects of the alternative plans without enumerating and aggregating them for each project and program.• It is possible that certain of the information proposed by GFCC to be eliminated might be of help to its public in understanding the planning process and in’making decisions. The description of the planning process by GFCC points out (4.F. p. 11.16) that: A limited set of criteria were defined to select potential projects and programs for each of the three plans formulated in the P&S Analysis. The available data limited the appli- cability of more sophisticated criteria. Plans formulated under these limitations are not truly If optimal .“ However, the NED and EQ Plans that were evolved are somewhat dis- tinct in character, and provide a basis against which the RA Plan can be compared. State population projections and OBERS “C” and “E” projections were used for the ORBC Level B report with the OBERS projections considered as baseline. EPA’ s interagency agreements with HUD and other agencies were not taken into account in developing the Level B plan. ORBC states that these agree- ments were unknown to the other agencies and therefore the effects could not be considered. Air quality maintenance requirements were not considered. Possible adverse water quality impacts of proposed projects were not identi- fied in detail in the report but were included in the backup material con- sidered during the judgmental planning process. Energy requirements were not evaluated nor were possible impairments of downstream riparian water rights considered. Water Quality Management — Four major sources of water quality problems in the Basin were identified: Domestic sewage Industrial wastes 4—33 ------- Acid mine drainage Non-point sources Information as to facilities needs to control discharges of municipal and industrial wastes was supplied by the States and EPA. Acid mine drainage is considered to be the nxst serious water quality problem in the Basin, resulting from both active and inactive or abandoned mines. Drainage from active mines is considered an enforcement problem but abatement of pollution from inactive and abandoned mines will require substantial public investment. Information and plans for control of acid mine drainage were obtained from Applachian Regional Conunission and the States. Sediment from road construction, surface mines, timber harvest, agri- culture (tilled land), grazing, oil and gas exploration, recreation, stream bank erosion, urban development and other sources is considered to be the major non-point source pollution problem. The Level B Plan report presents very few quantitative data concerning the present quality conditions of the water resources of the Basin. The Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan report states that a number of alternatives for water quality management were considered (4 .G., page C-4): Effluent Treatment Measures Secondary Waste Treatment Advanced Waste Treatment Industrial Waste Treatment a. Best practical b. Best available Source Modification Measures Nine Sealing Land Treatment and Reclamation (including bank stabili- zation) Recycling Neutralization Individual Package Treatment Facilities (Residential and Commercial) Industrial Process Changes 4—34 ------- Operational and Regulatory Measures Changes in tJse of Consumer Products (e.g. Pesticides and Detergents) Zoning and Development Restrictions Operational Modifications to Existing Facilities o Collector System Centralization/decentralization of Institutions Stream Flow Regulation Effluent Flow Regulation Reservoir Management Effluent Taxes Improved Enforcement Procedures Other No Action. The report notes that “use of the water quality improvement w s possible with existing information, but can be completed wh€ n State Wht:er Quality Management Plans are complete” (4.G. P. N-71). Of particular interest for future water quality manacrement in the Monon— galiela River Basin is the conclusion that the existinq 7 da /i;) year minimum low flows (of critical concern in water quality cont: ) - everal stream reaches may be significantly reduced in the future due to increases in w ter consumption for municipal, industrial, agricultural and energy productio i demands, unless low flow augmentation is provided. Exaim.ie Jiven of such potential reductions are (4.G., Pages N-24 and N-25): Tygart River (Graf ton to Fairnont) - 22% Cheat River (Rowlesburg to Pt. Marian) - 76% Youghiogheny River (Cornelville to McKeesport) -- 36% Monongahela River at Pittsburgh - 40% With respect to water quality control, the Level B plan report recom- mends: 4—35 ------- o Implementation of Stonewall Jackson Lake on the West Fork River above Western, WV, for water quality con- trol and other functions. 0 Detailed planning for Rowlesburg Lake, Preston and Thcker Counties, WV, for water quality control and other purposes; o Detailed planning of several watershed projects for water quality control and other functions; * State determination by stream reach of minimum stream flow requirements for aquatic life; o State legislation to require reclamation at mire pros- pecting sites;• o A program of detailed planning for abandoned mine drainage abatement as a federal/state responsibility; 0 Increased federal and state funding for abandoned mine drainage and state enforcement programs for mine and industrial discharges. This may require U.S. Congres- sional legislation; ° A study of water quality and degradation in the basin, particularly as to the effects of large and small im— poQndxnents; 0 Development of West Virginia of recommendations to im- prove land management practices for erosion and sedi- ment control; o Implementation by construction of certain municipal sewerage facilities and detailed planning for others. The controversial matter of interstate allocation of responsibilities for required reimbursements to the United States by non-federal interests is left for the recommended detailed planning studies. The Level B Plan report notes (page 118): The water quality recommendations were developed by balancing existing and near term expected loads with the water quality standards at tJ 7 day/lO year low flow available in the streams. Effluents from in- creased industrial activity and municipal growth will have to fit within this overall balance and will be accounted for through tbe National Pollutant Discharge 4-36 ------- Elimination System (NPDES). The major water quality con- trol problem in the Monongahela is acid mine drainage from abandoned mines. Economic and demographic projections are secondary to legislative mandates for water quality control. The manner in which the water quality standards were taken into account is not further described. The base quality levels from which the benefits of water quality improvements were evaluated are not stated. Summary The summary of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Level B Plan describes the Plan recommendations and the environmental impacts in the following terms: DESCRIPTION OF ACTION : The Plan recommends Priority Group I (0 to 5 years) implementation of one major reservoir, one upstream watershed project, flood zoning and insurance at 13 locations, four local protection projects, 104 municipal wastewater treatment facilties, 130 mine drainage abatement projects, four local water supply facilities, the preser- vation of two natural areas, and the replacement of one navigation lock arid one lock and dam. Each specific recom- mendation requiring Federal funds will have a detailed EIS prepared by the appropriate agency prior to implementation. The EIS summarized here identifies the net impacts of the Plan as a whole. BENEFICIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS : The Plan provides for: creation of 4,376 acres of flatwater lakes which would pro- vide habitat for warm water fish and 1,615,000 annual visi- tor days; preservation of flora, fauna, and areas of geologic significance; sediment reduction in excess of 72,000 tons annually; improved water quality through low flow augmen- tation from Stonewall Jackson Lake; improved water quality from 104 domestic sewage facilities and 130 orphan mine projects; $12.3 million quantifiable annual benefits; in- creased industrial and recreational activities generated by one watershed project, one major reservoir, and two water supply facilities; long-and-short-term jobs from the a ve; flooding reduction from one water project, one major reser- voir, and four local protection projects; reduced drought risk by four projects. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS : The Plan would cause: inun- dation of 4,376 acres of open and green space in a Basin of 4.5 million acres; disruption of 55 out of 11,000 miles of existing natural stream channel by four projects; disruption 4—37 ------- of natural environment by users of recreation facilities; costs of $10.2 million annually and $311.2 million total; possible loss of 2,650 acres of coal resources and associ- ated jobs; loss of land from the tax rolls. OREC Staff Comments - The purpose of Level B studies is considered to be: The purpose of the Level B studies is defined under Public Law 89-80, Section 201, (b) (4) as being to “foster and under- take such studies of water and related land resources problems in the area, River Basin, or group of River Basins as are necessary in the preparation of the Plan described in clause (2) of this sub—section.” Clause (2) concerns the preparation of a comprehensive coordinated joint plan for Federal, State, Interstate, local and Non—governmental development of water and related resources. Further statements regarding the purpose of Level B studies are contained in the policy state- ment by the Water Resources Council, dated July 22, 1970. - Regardless of whether it is titled Level B or 209, both Public Law 89-80 and PL 92-500 recognize that comprehensive planning is essential; that it requires a joint effort with all special interest represented, organized formally or informally so du- plication can be eliminated, conflicts resolved, compromises which best meet the needs of all and do the least harm to any can be identified and implemented; and that the analysis is essential to determine: (1) what, in general should be done; (2) which alternative best does what has been decided should be done; (3) how well what has been done is doing what should be done. The above recognition was based primarily on the fact that the goal above is unlikely to be accomplished by a single agency or by a single agency funded or dominated effort.; This recognition is based on the premise that an agency with a special purpose can not conscientiously carry out its man- date if it has the lead in a multi-purpose planning effort. (Letter from ORBC dated 13 May 1976 In response to contractor’s request for vIews on Level B planning). The effects of upstream demands and developments constitute the prin- ciple input front Level B planning to areawide water quality management plan- ning. Input front areawide water quality management planning to Level B planning should encompass land use plans and information on non-point sources. Level B planning accelerates the planning process. The Level B plan for the Monongahela River Basin recommends a cost— effective allocation of. funds for water quality control. 4—38 ------- EPA regulations and guidelines should require states to participate in areawide water quality management planning (Note: this now required by 40 CFR 130). Deviation from established water quality standards should be permitted in Level B planning. ORBC concurs with Section I, II, and III of WRC Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River Basin Planning (4.P.) but does not agree with Section Iv. Areawide water quality management planning personnel did not partici- pate in the Level B planning process to the extent desirable. Public participation should be a joint endeavor between water quality management planning and Level B planning programs. Contractor’s Observation No. 1 It is not evident that ORBC agressively sought participation by areawide and state water quality management planning agencies. Such water quality agencies appear to have voluntarily participated only to a minimal extent. The Level B planning by ORBC would have benefitted from greater input by those agencies and the recommendations might have been made more specific. Apart from the information on acid mine drainage available from the Appalachian Regional Commission and other sources it appears that there was little information readily available concerning discharges of pollutants fron non—point sources at the time the Level B study was initiated. The Monongahela Level B PlaxI can provide valuable inforina- tion for water quality management planning, particularly with respect to: o potential minimum stream flow depletions due to future water resource development and utilization unless additional upstream water supply storage is provided as recommended by the Level B Plan; o the interstate nature of water resource management problems especially as regards pollution from acid mine drainage and sediment, and the necessity for coordinated interstate remedial actions; ° some of the trade-offs to be considered in basin—wide water and related land resource management; 4—39 ------- o prioritization of projects and programs, including those for water quality management, in the context of overall resource management needs and the timing thereof. The methodology developed for application of the plan formu- lation and evaluation procedures prescribed by the Principles and Standards to the Level B planning process under the new approach is reasonable and will be useful elsewhere. The Level B Plan is in accordance with the basic essentials of WRC Proposed Guidelines and fulfills the requirements of the Principles and Standards. For future planning for the CCJP, ORBC needs to: o take full cognizance of PL 92—500, its goals, objec- tives, mandates, and EPA implementing regulations, particularly as regards water quality standards and anti—degradation policy; o place greater emphasis on water quality management problems and on the quality impacts of water develop- ment and utilization proposals. o seek greater input from water quality management plan- ning agencies; and o incorporate areawide and state water quality management plans and programs. Pittsburgh 208 Area Planning The designated Pittsburgh 208 Area includes the six counties of Alle- gheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland including and surrounding the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh. Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and Westmoreland Counties comprise the Pittsburgh SMSA. The 208 area includes the northerly portion of the Monongahela River Basin but the greater portion lies outside that Basin. The designated area encompas- ses about 4,500 square miles. The six county area is included in the State- wide Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan (C ThNP) Study Area No. 9 as defined by the State Department of Environmental Resources. Portions are included in Air Quality Management Areas (5.A.). Population of the designated area was 2,604,776 in 1970 and is expected to reach about 2,851,000 by the end of the 20th century. The population is now about 70.4% urban (5 .A.). The area is heavily industrialized. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Coninission (SPRPC) has been designated as the areawide water quality management planning agency. A plan- ning grant of $1,511,432 was awarded by EPA on June 30, 1975 (5.A.). 4—40 ------- At the time of interview (March 10, 1976), a 208 plan of study and work control plan had not been completed and approved. A 208/COwAMp Work Program was issued under date of March 15, 1976. This later program includes the adjacent counties of Fayette, G een and Indiana as well as the designated six—county 208 area. Essentially, it is a description and scheduling of the tasks to be accomplished (5.C.). A number of water quality problems were identified in the Section 208 Designation Proposal (5.A.), namely: o Untreated and/or inadequately treated municipal and industrial waste discharge; o Acid mine drainage; o Urban stream drainage, including combined sewer overflows; o A variety of non-point sources, including erosion, agri- cultural land runoff, feedlot runoff and de-icing activi- ties; o Thermal pollution; 0 Landfill leachate; 0 Excessive mineral constituent concentrations in surface and ground waters. Upstream interrelationships are not mentioned in the designation proposal. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission is cooperating with the State of Pennsylvania in both the Comprehensive Water Quality Manage- ment Planning program (COWAMP) and the State Water Plan program (SWP). These two State planning progams are discussed later herein. SPRPC is responsible for COWAMP and 208 planning in Water Quality Management Area No. 9 described above. SPRPC is providing population and other projections for SWP, Phase II of which, development of alternatives and formulation of plan proposals, is to be initiated soon. The interrelationships between SPRPC water quality management planning and the planning being done by the State are fully recognized. Most non—point source controls will be under State jurisdiction. Agencies that will be affected by water quality management are being involved in the planning process. SPRPC Staff Comments - More input to Level B planning by ORBC could have been provided by SPRPC had sufficient funds been available. 4—41 ------- Greater participation by ORBC in water quality management planning is desirable. Level B planning activities should be more visible to the public. ORBC will, be helpful in achieving public understanding and ac- ceptance. Implementation of water quality management plans in Pennsylvania will be difficult unless similar and coordinated actions are taken in West Virginia. SPRPC staff is not familiar with WRC Proposed Guidelines. The Level B Plan will be of little value to SPRPC insofar as Pennsyl- vania is concerned. The same information could be obtained from the State’s COWAMP and SW? programs. The Plan will be helpful as regards interstate aspects although SPRPC could obtain much of the required information directly from West Virginia agencies. contractor’s Observation No. 2 Achievement of the water quality goals and objectives man- dated by PL 92-500 within the designated Pittsburgh 208 area will depend in part on control of upstream non-point sources, particularly acid mine drainage and erosion; a considerable portion of thepollutant load from these sources originates in West Virginia. Control of such sources will be largely de- pendent upon further legislative enactments and appropriations for both studies and implementing actions by the States and Federal Government. Coordinated interstate and Federal actions will be necessary. Recommendations for such legislative ac- tion on an interstate basis are included in the Level B Plan as discussed above. Upstream developments and use of water resources in the three States may adversely affect the minimum stream flows within the designated Pittsburgh 208 area. Such depletion of minimum stream flows could be countered by providing additional upstream water supply storage as recommended in the Level B plan, or avoided by enacting water conservation practices and placing controls on development, not considered in the Level B plan. In view of the current uncertainties concerning control of significant upstream nonpoint pollution sources and other potential upstream effects, and the need for coordinated insterstate action, cost—effective water quality management planning will be particularly difficult. The Level B plan can be of value to SPRPC in water quality management planning for the Pittsburgh 208 area, particularly as regards information on possible stream flow depletions. At the time of the interviews, it appeared that this information was in fact more readily available through the Level B Plan than through the State of West Virginia. 4—42 ------- SPRPC should work closely with ORBC to achieve implementation of the Level B Plan recommendations and in further planning for ORBC’s CCJP. Pennsylvania - Water Quality Management Planning The Comprehensive Water Quality Management Planning (COWAMP) program for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is conducted by the Bureau of Water Quality Management, Department of Environmental Resources (DER). By April 1976, an application for a Federal grant for the COWAMP program had been completed (6.C.). The COWAMP program, which was initiated in January 1974, had been revised to accord with EPA requirements for State water quality management planning set forth in 40 CFR 130 and 131. The objectives of the DER planning process is stated to be (6.C., page 19): The general objectives of Pennsylvania’s continuing plan- ning process are to: (1) organize the elements of the State’s water quality management program into an effective and efficient force to implement state and federal water quality management legislation; (2) describe the relation- ships and linkages between the water quality management program elements; (3) provide general direction for de- velopment of specific activities to be carried out in various program elements such as strategy development, water quality standards development, water quality manage- ment planning, public participation, monitoring, etc.; (4) describe relationships between the water quality management planning agencies and other agencies and planning programs; (5) establish priorities and scheduling for significant program activities. The goals and objectives of the COWANP program are (6 .C., pages 22, 25, 26): The overall objective of COWAMP is to establish a sound, long-range basis for water quality management and pol- lution control in Pennsylvania. Its scope encompasses municipal and industrial was tewater collection and treat- ment, abatement of combined sewer overflows, control of agricultural and urban runoff, maintenance of groundwater quality, acid mine drainage and disposal of sludges and other process by—products. It calls for the inventory of the pollution problems posed by each of the above sources; the identification of the engineering, management, insti- tutional, and financial alternatives available to deal with them; and the development of an implementable program to achieve specific water quality and regulatory objectives in each study area. In cases where specific project or program recommendations are not possible, recommendations will be made for additional follow-up studies to carry forward the COWAMP effort. 4—43 ------- The overall goal of the COWAMP program--is to develop a cost—effective and environmentally sound water quality management plan and program on a geographic and problem specific basis. This plan and program will comply with state and federal laws, regulations, and policies. Within this overall goal, specific program objectives include the following: 1. to identify environmental amenities and values of regional, state, and national significance and to develop potential water quality management policies and practices that would aid in the pres- ervation or enhancement; 2. to evaluate and where approp;iate modify existing water quality standards to achieve federal and state water quality objectives; 3. to identify and assess the impact of significant point and non-point sources of pollution; 4. to identify major ground-water quality problems, including their relationships to surface water quality and to point and non-point sources of pollution; 5. to establish municipal waste management priorities, both on a regional and state—wide basis; 6. to identify the major technological, financial, and administrative barriers to the attainment of state and federal water quality objectives and to reconmiend appropriate steps (including legis- lation and regulations) to overcome them; 7. to develop new data management systems to supple- ment existing ones for the storage, recall, and use of socio—economic, environmental and water quality data to facilitate the efficient operation of a continuing planning process; 8. to develop and reconunend preliminary facility plans on a regional basis that meet projected waste load demands and water quality objectives; 9. to develop and recormnend preliminary institutional and management arrangements that will facilitate the construction of needed facilities on a timely basis and assure their efficient and reliable oper- ation; 4-44 ------- 10. to determine the immediate and long-range eco- nomic impact of recommended plans and programs on the Commonwealth and its citizens; 11. to determine the existing statutory authority of agencies involved in water quality management and (where appropriate) to recommend appropriate modi- fications to that authority; 12. to integrate to the greatest extent practicable water quality management plans and activities with other on—going environmental management activities, including air quality management, solid waste management, and water supply manage- ment; 13. to initiate and develop the framework for a con- tinuing planning process which provides for citi- zen participation on an on-going basis; 14. to develop plan evaluation and update procedures; 15. to determine and reconvi end the monitoring and sur- veillance program and strategy that will ensure compliance with federal and state water quality program policies. DER has formed a policy advisory committee in each of the several study areas into which the State has been subdivided for COWAMP. An advisory state—wide COWAMP group has been formed consisting of representatives of the following agencies (6.C., page 13): Bureau of Water Quality Management, DER Office of Enforcement and General Counsel, DER Office of Planning and Research, DER Governor’s Office of State Planning and Development State Department of Community Affairs State Department of Transportation State Department of Agriculture Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission Philadelphia Water Department Environmental Protection Agency 4 45 ------- Chairmen, Policy Advisory Committee for each Study area. To assure that COWAMP is properly coordinated with other DER activities, a c( q j p management team has been formed consisting of representatives of following DER agencies (6.C., pages 13, 14); Bureau of Water Quality Management Bureau of Environmental Master Plan Bureau of Systems Management Citizens Advisory Council Office of Enforcement and General Counsel Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control Bureau of Community Environmental Control Bureau of Land Protection Bureau of Resources Programming Office of the Associate Deputy for Air, Water and Community Protection. In addition to COWANP, other interrelated planning programs are in progress in Pennsylvania which are coordinated among themselves through a variety of institutional mechanisms, namely (6.C., pages 15, 16): 0 The State Water Plan o Wild and Scenic Rivers Program 0 Coastal Zone Management 0 Environmental Master Plan o Solid Waste Management Program 0 Interim State Land Policy Plan 0 Sewage Facilities Act Plan 0 Air Quality Planning COWAI4P appears to be fully coordinated with water quality management planning in designated planning areas. Written agreements are developed with areawide planning agencies prior to designation. 4—46 ------- State Planning Office population projections are used as baseline. These are modified in some instances to accord with projections made by regional planning agencies. Alternative policies for water quality management are developed based on studies of alternative environmental futures. Public participation is emphasized. A common data base with the State Water Plan is used. COWAMP Staff Comments - There was limited participation by COWAMP staff in the Monongahela Level B planning by ORBC. Activity by the Mon- ongahela CCJP Water Quality Work Group was limited. COWAMP staff is not familiar with WRC Proposed Guidelines. Usefulness of the Monongahela Level B Plan is limited; it is not rele- vant. The interrelationships between water quality management planning and Level B planning are principally those concerned with hydrological and developmental effects. States should do Level B planning for areas not within the jurisdiction of a river basin commission. Level B planning should be properly sequenced, prior in time, with water quality management planning and should be a con- tinuing process. Level B planning should be more closely tied in to land resource planning and management. Greater funding should be provided for Level B planning studies with allocations to participating agencies. Level B planning staffs should have competent water quality special- ists. Contractor’s Observation No. 3 COWAMP staff should participate fully with the on-going ORBC CCJP studies. See observation below concerning Pennsylvania State Water Plan. Pennsylvania — State Water Plan (sWP ) State Water Planning activities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are conducted by the Bureau of Resources Programming, Office of Resources Management, Department of Environmental Resources (DER). Planning was initiated in 1966 pursuant to the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. Work by subbasins started in 1972. The purpose of the State water Planning program is (6.8. Page 2): 4-47 ------- The purpose of this planning effort is to develop a flexi- ble State Water Plan for the wise management of the Common- wealth’s water and related land resources to meet the present and future needs of the people of Pennsylvania, and to im- prove the quality of life. Accordingly, the Plan provides guidelines designed to: 1. Regulate the quantity and quality of available water to assure adequate supplies of good water to meet present and future needs, in consonance with protection of the environment, as well as the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. Develop and conserve water and related land re- sources to meet.the residential, municipal, in- dustrial, agricultural, electric power, navigation, and recreational requirements, and to provide flood damage reduction and water where necessary to meet water quail ty management requirements; 3. Preserve the natural and scenic beauty of areas adjacent to certain wild and scenic water areas and streams for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 4. Control and reduce the amount of [ acid] mine drainage entering the streams of the Commonwealth from abandoned surface and subsurface mines. 5. Establish priorities which permit needs to be met in order of urgency. 6. Utilize the water and related land resources of the Commonwealth toward achievement of the State’s social, economic, and environmental goals. The specific goals and objectives with respect to water quality manage- ment are stated to be (6.B. pages 3-4); Goal: Prevent pollution of the waters of the Common- wealth, and reclaim and restore to a clean, unpolluted condition all presently polluted waters so that probable and planned water uses will be protected at all times. Objectives : a. Establish water quality standards designed to protect all probable users of the Commonwealth’s waters. 4-48 ------- b. Provide for development of water quality manage- ment programs which include both individual and regional waste collection and treatment systems designed to protect and conserve the Commonwealth’s waters. c. Identify and develop institutional arrangements for implementation of regional or basinwide water quality plans. d. Develop financing methods and programs for the pro- vision of adequate present and future water zr anage— ment facilities and devices. e. Provide a basis for allocation of grant funds and for enforcement of pollution control laws. f. Control pollution from non—point sources, such as sediment and agricultural wastes, and prevent pol- lution incidents by requiring adequate product and waste handling safeguards. g. Develop and institute programs for control and abatement of (acid) mine drainage from abandoned mines. Water quality management planning seems to be fully integrated with water resources planning and is sequential in time. Water quality impacts are fully evaluated. When completed, the water quality management plan developed under the Comprehensive Water Quality Management Planning (COWAMP) program will become the water quality management element of the State Water Plan (6.B. page 32) (Page 47 above). In March 1976, SWP planning wasout of phase with the COWAMP program; it was ahead by about 18 months. Problems and needs had been identified, and alternative solutions formulated and evaluated; release to the public was then scheduled for April 1976. SWP and COWAMP use the same data base and same population projections. In Pennsylvania, interbasin transfers through sewerage systems are common. Downstream water uses under water rights in basins of origin are frequently adversely affected through such transfers. A Stream Flow Regu- lation Task Force has been established comprising representatives of SW?, COWAMP, DER Legal Section, Bureau of Environmental Master PLanning and Fish Commission. The representative of the Fish Commission acts as Chair- man. There is active coordination -among the State resource planning agencies and regional planning agencies. SWP Staff Comments - The staff was not familiar with EPA regulations for water quality management planning (40 CFR 130 and 131). WRC Proposed Guide- lines were considered to be of little value. WRC Principles and Standards 4—49 ------- were judged to be of doubtful value and very difficult to apply although the concept of identifying and evaluating trade-off s is good. The mandates of PL 92-500 regarding effluent limitations and the values thereof are accepted. The value of Level B planning and plans is mostly in the area of facilitating interstate coordination. The Corps of Engineers might be re- sponsible for Level B planning for interstate stream basins not within the jurisdiction of a river basin commission or interstate agency. Benefits of low flow augmentation are much greater than EPA considers them to be. Contractor’s Observation No. 4 Water quality management planning in Pennsylvania appears to be fully coordinated with comprehensive water and land resource planning. This could well serve as an example for other states, interstate agencies and water quality management planning agen- cies. The stated lack of familiarity with EPA regulations and WRC Proposed Guidelines indicates the need for both EPA and WRC to work closely with State agencies engaged in water resource plan- ning including water quality management. West Virginia Water resource planning at the State Level had been reorganized shortly before the time of interview and certain new personnel appointed. The Office of Federal—State Relations in the Office of the Governor had been designated as the State planning agency to oversee and manage water quality management planning pursuant to Sec. 208, PL 92-500, for designated and non—designated areas. Planning for non—designated areas is to be accom- plished primarily by the Planning and Development Regional Councils (6.E.) in cooperation with the Division of Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, and with assistance by U.S. Soil Conservation Service. A coordinating committee is to be set up, but the communication and coordi- nation problems were not yet worked out. The Division of Water Resources (DWR) retains the responsibility for State water resource planning and for planning to be accoix plished pursuant to Sec. 303(e), PL 92-500. DWR Staff Comments - There may be some overlap between water quality management planning and Level B planning. The iinplementability of Level B plans is questionable. 4—50 ------- State water resource planning is progressing but is limited by insuf— ficient funds and personnel. Maintenance of the present minimum 7 day/b year frequency stream f lows is being attempted but depletions are frequently permitted. Planning pursuant to Sec. 303(e), PL 92-500, will base water quality standards, stream segment classifications and waste load allocations on present conditions. Present emphasis in water quality control is on municipal and industrial discharges. Little attention has yet been given to other aspects of water quality management. Agricultural runoff and return- flows ate not a significant non—point source problem. Individual sewage disposal systems, septic tanks and leach fields, are a critical problem in certain areas where growth is rapid and conditions for use of such systems are unfavorable. Erosion, particularly due to highway construction, is a severe non—point source problem. Iron in mine drainage as well as acid is a serious problem. Control of acid mine drainage will be conducted at state level. The value of Level B planning for water quality management planning will increase over time. The current sequencing of the two programs is questioned, however. Contractor’s Observation No. 5 At the time of the interview, staff members of the Planning Branch, Division of Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources, indicated little knowledge of either Level B planning or of the Mo— n.ongahela Level B plan. Likewise, there was little knowledge indicated concerning the Urban Studies Program of the Corps of Engineers. At the time of interview, the staff of the Office of Federal— State Relations in charge of water quality management planning on behalf of the State had not had an opportunity to familiar- ize themselves with EPA regulations and guidelines or with WRC Proposed Guidelines and the Principles and Standards. The need for full coordination between water quality management planning and other aspects of water and related land resource planning was recognized, however. The reorganized state structure for planning may pose severe problems in achieving the necessary coordination and integration 4— 51 ------- of the several activities in water and related land resource plan- ning, particularly in view of the short time available for comple- tion of the initial water quality management plans. It is essential that the staffs of West Virginia agencies in- volved with water quality management planning become familiar with related planning programs and actively coordinate their planning activities with such other programs. It is particularly impor- tant that there be active participation in the ORBC CCJP con- tinuing planning process. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Representatives of Region III participated actively on the Study Dir- ection and Plan Formulation Committee and on the Water Quality Work Group for ORBC’s Monongahela Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan program in- cluding Level B planning. Region III, EPA Staff Comments - Level B planning and the Level B plan are valuable in that: it brought together and evaluated the several plans and proposals that had been made previously and pre- sented a recommended program with priorities based on consensus; o It gives projections of future water demands and minimum stream flows; and o provides a mechanism for coordination. The principal value of Level B planning is for interstate streams. More attention should be given to water quality impacts and water quality management than was the case for the Monongahela Level B plan. Water resource planning in Pennsylvania--both COWAMP and SWP--is beingwellaccomplished. Planning in West Virginia had not yet been organized under the new alignment of responsibilities. Region III staff interviewed were not familiar with WRC s “new approach” or with the Proposed Guidelines. Principles and Standards are not of much value except as an exercise to identify benefits and costs, with some quantification, and the trade—of fs to be considered. Established water quality standards should be accepted .as baseline conditions for Level B planning. Water quality management planning should be regarded as one component of comprehensive water and related land resource planning. 4—52 ------- Contractor’s Observation No. 6 The stated lack of familiarity with WRC’s Proposed Guidelines arid procedures indicates the need for WRC to work more closely with EPA’s regional Offices. Other Agency Staff Comments Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, staff suggested that Level B planning is helpful in that it brings together and integrates into a comprehensive package, the proposals, programs and views of all agencies. It provides the opportunity to prioritize projects and programs, including those for water quality control. The District staff had no opinion regarding the WRC Proposed Guidelines. 4—53 ------- REFERENCES Central Snake Case Study 1. Central Snake River Basin A. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Conclusions and Recom— mendations for the State Water Plan — Part II, Snake River Basins . March 1976. B. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Effects of Full Development of Existing Water Right Permits and Applications Below M.ilner Dam on Flows of Snake River . January 1976. C. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Newspaper supplement describing issues in Snake River Basin. Undated. D. Idaho Department of Water Resources. You and Water. A Summary of Answers to the Snake River Basin Newspaper Supplex tent Question- naire . September 1975.. B. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Comprehensive Frame- work Plans, Appendix (XIV) Columbia-North Pacific Region Compre- hensive Framework Study . Vancouver, WA. June 1972. F. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Main Report. Columbia- North Pacific Regional Comprehensive Framework Study . Vancouver, WA. September 1972. G. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Minutes of the thirty- sixth meeting. March 22, 1973. H. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Minutes of the thirty- seventh meeting. July 12, 1973. I. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. A Plan of Study for Preparing the Comprehensive Joint Plan for the Pacific Northwest - A Supplement to the Western U.S. Water Plan of Study . Vancouver, WA. December 1971. J. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. A Plan of Study for Preparing the Comprehensive Joint Plan for the Pacific Northwest - A Supplement to the Western U.S. Water Plan of Study. Appendix C. Plan Formulation . Vancouver, WA. June 29, 1972. K. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. A Plan of Study for Preparing the Comprehensive Joint Plan for the Pacific Northwest — A Supplement to the Western U.S. Water Plan of Study. Appendix D. Rescoped Study Program . Vancouver, WA. March 22, 1973. 4-54 ------- L. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. September 30, 1975 Status Report. Comprehensive Joint Plan . M. Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission. Water Quality and Pollution Control. Appendix (XII) Columbia- North Pacific Region Comprehensive Framework Study . Vancouver, WA. December 1971. N. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory, 1974 Report to the Congress (Snake River Por- tion). Washington, DC. 1974. 2. Ada.Canyon Counties 208 Area A. Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee. Grant Application - Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning . Boise, ID. May 1975. B. Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee. Project Control Program . Boise, ID. August 1975. C. Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee. Purchase of Service Contract with the Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Services - Appendix A, Services to be Performed . Boise, ID. October 9, 1975. D. Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management committee. Section 208 Milestone Report No. 1, July-September, 1975 . Boise, ID. September 1975. E. Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee. Section 208 Milestone Report No. 2, October-December, 1975 . Boise, ID. December 1975. F. Ada Council of Governments and Canyon Development Council. Appli- cation for Designation as the Section 208 Water Quality Management Planning Agency . Boise, ID. January 1975. G. Ada Council of Governments, Canyon Development Council and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Plan of Study, Boise Valley, Idaho Re- gional Management Study . June 1973. H. Andrus, Governor Cecil D. Letter to Clifford Smith, Regional Administrator, EPA, dated January 17, 1975 concerning designation of Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management Committee. r; Armacost, LV. Letter to H.J. Owen dated 26 February 1976 concerning Boise Valley, Idaho, Regional Water Management Study. - 4-5:5 ------- J. Gabettas, James. Letter to Alvin S. Marsden, Ada Council of Govern- ments dated March 24, 1975, concerning federal lands. K. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Letter dated May 15, 1975, from James A. Box, Director of IDHW to George Pattis concerning State certification of 208 grant application of Ada/Canyon Area— wide Waste Treatment Management Committee. L. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Memorandum to Ada/Canyon Areawide Waste Treatment Management comitttee concerning Identif i- cation of major and natural streams and surface water bodies in the Ada Canyon 208 area. February 4, 1976. N. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Memorandum to Lynn McKee, EPA, recommending approval of the Ada/Canyon Project Control Program. August 12, 1975. N. McKee, Lynn. Letter to H.J. Owen dated 24 February 1976 concerning the status of water quality planning. 0. Minter, R. Memorandum dated January 13, 1976, to ACOG, CDC, EPA, IDHW and USCE concerning economic and demographic projections and analysis for the Ada/Canyon 208 area. P. Myers,Carl. Water Planning Division, EPA. Undated letter to Ada/Can- yon county, Idaho 208 Designation File,concerning Federal Lands. Q. Smith, Clifford V. Letter to Governor Jthdrus, dated April 21, 1975, approving designation of Ada/Canyon 208 planning area. R. Train, Russell E. Letter to Governor Pndrus, dated April 2, 1975, approving designation of Ada/Canyon 208 planning area. S. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Background Summary, Ma/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee [ undated). T. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Sec. 208 Designation. Ma/Canyon Counties, Idaho [ undated). 3. State Water and Related Land Resources Planning Programs A. Andrus, Governor Cecil D. Undated letter to heads of all State agencies directing observation of the Objectives report. B. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Draft “Statewide 208” Workplan Outline . March 15, 1976. C. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. State of Idaho, Water Quality Program Strategy . FY 1976. 4 % ------- D. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Statewide Water Quality Management Planning Report (annual strategy). February 1976. B. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Application of Water Resource Planning Grant (Title III), August 1974. F. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Application for Water Resource Planning Grant (Title III), June 1975. G. Idaho Department of Water Resource. The Objectives, State Water Plan - Part One . June 1974. H. Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Idaho Report. Problems and Approaches to Areawide Water Quality Manage- ment . 1972. I. Opinion Research West. A Survey of Public Attitudes and Opinions on Idaho Water Resources . Boise, Idaho. August 1975. Monongahela Case Study 4. Monongahela River Basin A. Ohio River Basin Survey Coordinating Committee, Ohio River Basin Com- prehensive Survey , Main Report, Volume 1, August 1969. B. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Ad- ministration, Ohio River Basin Comprehensive Survey, Water Supply and Water Pollution Control , Appendix D. Volume V. June 1967. C. Ohio River Basin Commission, A Plan of Study for Preparing the Monongahela River Basin Portion of the Comprehensive Cooridnated Joint Plan for the Ohio River Basin . Revised September 1972. D. Ohio River Basin Commission, Level B Plan of Study for the Monongahela River Basin Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan . January 1974. E. Ohio River Basin Commission, Monongahela River Basin Water and Re- lated Land Resources Study Report . July 1975. F. Gannett, Fleming, ‘Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Engineers. Monon- gahela River Basin Principles and Standards Analyses . Final Report. December 1975. Prepared for Ohio River Basin Commission. G. Ohio River Basin Commission. Monongahela River Basin Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan (CCJP). July 1975. H. Ohio River Basin Commission. Definition of the Comprehensive Co- ordinated Joint Plan for Water and Related Resources for the Ohio River Basin . Revised July 24, 1975. 4—57 ------- I. Ohio River Basin Commission. Policy Statement for Public Par- ticipation . Adopted October 25, 1973. J. Ohio River Basin Commission “What is Your Opinion of the Proposed Projects and Programs?” Planning Workshop Book for the Monongahela River Basin Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan . October 1974. K. Ohio River Basin Commission. Summaries, Planning Workshops, Mon- ongahela River Basin Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan . (1) October 15, 1974, Oakland, MD. (2) October 23, 1974, Belle Vernon, PA. (3) October 28, 1974, Buchannon, WV. (4) December 4, 1974, Fairinont, WV. L. Ohio River Basin Commission. Summaries, Monongahela CCJP Water Quality Work Group . (1) May 21, 1973. (2) September 18, 1974. M. Ohio River Basin Commission. Summaries, Study Direction and Plan Formulation Committee for the Monongahela River Basin CCJP . (1) May 31, 1973. (2) October 2, 1973. (3) December 11, 1973. (4) March 26, 1974 (5) June 19, 1974. (6) September 19 1974. (7) December: 5, 1974. (8) February 26—27,1975. N. Ohio River Basin Commission. Summary, Monongahela Working Board Meetipq . June 10—13, 1974. 0. Ohio River Basin Commission. Comments on Level B Plan Report by Various Agencies . November 1975 - January 1976. P. Ohio River Basin Commission. ORBC Policy on WRC Guidelines for Level B’Studies . Adopted January 22, 1976. 4—58 ------- 5. Southwestern Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) 208 Area A. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information. Pittsburgh 208 . B. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. Section 208 Designation Proposal . April 1975. C. Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission. 208/COWAMP Work Program . March 15, 1976. 6. State Comprehensive Water and Related Land Resources Planning Programs A. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources. Applications for Title III Assistance Grants under Authority of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 (PL 89-80, 79 Stat. 244) , for Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976. B. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources State Water Plan , SWP-1. March 1975. C. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management. Federal Grant Application for Comprehensive Water Quality Management Planning . April 1976. D. State of West Virginia, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources. Applications for Planning Assistance Under Title III, Water Resources Planning Act, (PL 89-80, 79 Stat. 244) . for Fiscal Years 1975 and 1976. E. n Act of the West Virginia Legislature, Second Extra-ordinary Ses— sion, 1971, Regional Planning and Development . Approved by the Governor November 17, 1971. 4—59 ------- CHAPTER 5 PLAN INTERRELATIONSHIPS Defining and evaluating the interrelationships between water quality and water quantity planning in all aspects may add substantial complexity to both Level B and water quality management planning studies. However, their consideration is generally necessary if recommended plans of either type are to realistically recognize the full range of impacts. This Chap- ter briefly describes rudimentary interrelationships which should be con- sidered. While those described might appear so basic as to not require mention, experience indicates otherwise. Based on the case studies per- formed and on the experience of. the principal investigator in water resources planning studies in various contexts in the United States and elsewhere, the interrelationshps discussed are often not understood, or at least not considered. Some of the interrelationships that should be considered in planning for both water quality management and control, development and use of water and related resources for beneficial purposes have long been recognized. However, the full range of interdependencies has not been appreciated or taken into account by all planners engaged in the manifold planning pro- grams now in progress. The effects of lack of full understanding are exacerbated by the fact that water quality management planning for a par- ticular area or basin and “quantity planning” in or affecting the same geographic area are usually done by different agencies or by persons with different professional and administrative orientations. Quality planning has traditionally been an activity of a water pol- lution control agency, influenced in times past very heavily by public health motivations and more recently by additional considerations in- cluding quality as related to protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, to esthetics and water—oriented recreation, and to industrial and agricultural water supplies. In contrast, quantity planning has usually been project oriented and has tended to view quality as either beside the point or of secondary concern because it was the responsibility of someone else. Level B planning is defined as a particular scope and intensity of planning rather than as necessarily for any onepurpose to the exclusion of others. Until recently, the customary objective of a Level B plan was to identify and rationalize the need for water resources projects—— generally those involving the construction of public works. Consequently, introduction of the full gamut of water quality concerns to Level B planning necessitates acceptance by planners of a different and more diverse framework in which there should be a balancing of developmental values with possible quality detriments or enhancements, and in which 5—1 ------- the scales may be tipped for or against a particular kind of development, depending on overall policy considerations concerning quality protection. In such a context, the Level B process may become a forum for reconciliation of competing quality and quantity values in a way previously not envisioned for this type of planning. Water quality management planning is intended to be “comprehensive” residual waste management planning carried on in recognition of the inter- actions with a variety of other societal concerns such as land management, transportation, industrial and agricultural activity, and residential development. Level B planning should be comprehensive as well in the context of overall water and related resource management. It should consider both quality and quantity. in the context of overall water resource management. A tacit assumption of Level B planning characteristic of earlier times was that water quality was of little or no economic value. This outlook was a reflection of the times and conditions in which it was conducted and was consistent with policy judgments no longer taken as a matter of course. As these policies change, and as planners more fully and routinely consider both quantity and quality aspects of water resource management, both water quality management and Level B plans will need to incorporate consideration of the economic values of waters of different qualities in the particular setting of the basin or area involved. A balancing or consideration of tradeoffs may pose a problem in ti context of quality planning. The Federal Water Pollution Control ACt Amendments of 1972 have the dominant purpose of attaining the water quality objectives and goals set forth in the statute. While there are some provisions of the law which call specifically for con- sideration of economic factors, especially those associated with com- merce and industry, the Act appears to intend that water quality manage- ment planning be done with the improvement and maintenance of quality as the dominant element. Sane of the important general relationships that should be con- sidered reciprocally in water quality management planning and in Level B planning are discussed below. In specific situations, a wide spectrum of interdependencies may be significant. The importance of each inter- dependency may vary according to the severity of water quality problems, present and anticipated future uses of water for beneficial purposes, and other factors peculiar to a specific area. 5—2 ------- Data Base Historic records or estimates concerning hydrology, both quantity and quality, of surface and ground waters,meteorology, water uses, land uses, waste generation, treatment and disposal, population growth, economic development, and recreation and other amenities, are the fundamental base for planning and management of water and related resources. Land classi- fication and capabilities, and areas of critical environmental concern are of common interest in planning programs. Use of a common data base by all agencies engaged in planning activities involving water and related resource management is essential if the resulting plans are to be compre- hensive, fully coordinated, and consistent with one another. Demographic, economic, and land use projections and other generally applicable data should also be the same as those used for types of planning not directly related to water quantity or water quality planning. Use of a common data base for all functional planning enables decision makers to examine al- ternative demands for public investments on a rational basis. Air Quality Maintenance and improvement of air quality is mandatory under the Clean Air Act of 1970 as amended; pending amendments would increase the stringency of regulatory and control measures. Potential impacts on air quality must be carefully evaluated for all demographic, economic, and land use projections and in all planning activities. New urban and in- dustrial developments considered in Level B planning, or which might be induced by resource developments, could have adverse air quality impacts. Certain methods of waste treatment, incineration of sludge and solid wastes for example, may likewise have adverse impacts. Regulation in the interest of air quality is lodged in the same agency with water quality management at the federal level and in some states. However, different administrative units and personnel usually have oper- ational and even policy responsibilities for the water and air quality control programs. Further, these programs are generally administered under different statutes. Consequently, the need in both water quality management and Level B planning is for those doing it to be fully conver- sant with air quality requirements and plans and to take them into account. Water Quality Standards Achievement of water quality standards adopted by the States and ap- proved by EPA pursuant to PL 92-500 and implementing regulations, is mandatory. Federal, State and local water quality management planning agencies must necessarily base their plans on the approved standards and on the stream segment classifications and waste load allocations in accord with the standards. As discussed below, projects and programs considered 5—3 ------- under Level B planning could affect such standards through additional generation of wastes from point or non-point sources or both, or through alteration of hydrologic regimes. The standards must be taken into account in Level B planning, if Level B and water quality management planning are to be complementary, and any proposal that would adversely affect the approved standards or stream segment classifications or waste load allocations must be fully justified and dependent on a revision of the standards in accordance with prescribed procedures (40 CFR 130.17). In some instances such proposals may conflict with proposals for higher standards which are recommended as a means of decreasing the cost of water treatment to meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Con- versely, water quality management planners should recognize that some proposals recommended in Level B plans might be beneficial in main- taining water quality standards. Demographic and Economic Projections All planning related to future management of water and related re- sources necessarily involves projections of population growth and eco- nomic development. All water and related resource planning activities should be based on common projections in order that estimates of future water demands and of resultant waste generation will be consistent. OBERS projections could well be used for baseline conditions for both water quality and water quantity planning. Modifications made by individual planning agencies to accord with localized conditions and with State and local views should be consistent for the region or river basin. Land Use Projections of land uses by type and areal location to accord with projections of demographic and economic growth are the basis for estimates of future water needs and resultant future waste generation, and of the need for control measures and facilities for waste collection, and dis- posal. These projections, too, should be common for all planning activi- ties related to water and related resources. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Effects Any development and use of water will alter the hydrologic regime of the water resources involved, surface water or ground water or both, in terms of quantity, rates of flow, water levels, quality and other hydrologic characteristics. The effects are diverse in type, amount and impact location, and vary with the particular situation. The impacts may be beneficial in some respects and adverse in others as related to 5—4 ------- water quality management. Similarly, implementation of water quality management plans may have significant hydrologic effects on surface and ground waters and the uses thereof. A few generalized impacts based on the experience of the principal investigator, are discussed to illustrate some of the factors that should be considered in planning. Obviously diversion of surface water for municipal and industrial uses or for irrigation will deplete low flows downstream unless releases from upstream storage are provided, in which case low flows may be in- creased. But impoundments may result in significant overall losses of water through evaporation thus increasing mineral concentrations. Re- leases from storage to stream channels will generally change the temperature regime; properly managed releases may result in quality improvement bene- ficial to instream and other uses. Additional development of ground water for beneficial use may lower ground water levels and, in situations where ground water supports stream £ low through effluent seepage, may thereby decrease base stream flows. Return flows to the ground water body from use of the ground water on over- lying lands may increase mineral concentrations which in turn may increase concentrations in stream flows. Conversely, use of surface water for irrigation may increase ground water recharge through deep percolation and if of high quality, may tend to improve existing poor ground water quality. This may in turn improve stream base flow quality. Similar effects may result from artificial ground water recharge with high quality water either imported or through conservation of local runoff. Increased stream flows from releases from storage and lowered ground water levels due to ground water development may each result in increased ground water recharge with alteration in ground water quality. These hydrologic impacts of activities involving control, develop- ment, and use of water resources for beneficial purposes are of great significance to water quality management. The effects on stream flows are particularly important since changes in critical low flows, the 7 day average 10 year frequency minimum flows, as illustrated in the Monon— gahela Level B plan for example, could change stream segment classifica- tions and waste load allocations over time. Changes in ground water quantity and quality are of concern with respect to effluent disposal on land. New or increased uses of water for municipal or industrial uses or for irrigation that might be proposed in a Level B or similar plan, would result in increased generation of wastes from point and non— point sources with resultant increase in cost for treatment and disposal and for control of wastes from existing point and non—point sources. It is entirely possible that the net benefits resulting from new or increased use of water for beneficial purposes may justify revisions 5—5 ------- in water quality standards. In this regard the economic value of water quality is important. Water quality management activities too may have significant hydro- logic effects. changes in locations of effluent discharges to streams such as might result from regionalization or consolidation of sewerage systems, may decrease flows in some stream reaches and increase discharges in other stream segments. The effects may be detrimental to some water uses and beneficial to others. A change in disposal of effluent from streams to land often results in loss of water resources available for use through the large evaporative losses resulting from some methods of land application. Land disposal may increase ground water recharge but could impair ground water quality and in turn affect stream flows. Depending upon the particular technique used, control of non-point sources of pollution such as reduction in irrigation return flows, may cause substantial reduction in stream flows. The interrelated hydrologic effects on water resources involved due both to management for beneficial purposes and to water quality management are equally of concern to Level B or similar planning and to water quality management planning, and should be mutually considered and evaluated on a coordinated basis. It is important too that the full range of benefits and costs, including those resulting from hydrologic int.erdependencjes, be carefully considered in both types of planning. Water Rights Riparian rights, i.e. rights to use of water for beneficial purposes on lands which have been in continuous contact with the stream, attach to some or all surface waters of most states. Riparian rights are neither created through use nor lost through non-use and have not been quantified for most water bodies. Such rights are particularly important to the eastern, southern and mid—western states. Strict interpretation of the riparian doctrine holds that the riparian owner is entitled to receive the natural flow of the stream undiminished in quantity and unimpaired in quality, subject only to the correlative rights of other riparian owners. The overlying right to ground water is somewhat analogous to the riparian right. Appropriative right-s have also become vested to the waters of most streams and other surface waters and to many ground waters, particularly in the western states. Appropriative rights become vested through actual diversion and use of the water and may be lost through non—use. Such a right is for a specific amount of water to be diverted or withdrawn 5—6 ------- from a particular water resource at a specific place for a particular use or uses at a specified place or places. n appropriative right to surface water and, in some states to ground water, is now generally initiated by following procedures prescribed by law. Many streams in the west are overappropriated in terms of the total of permitted amounts. Riparian rights may be impaired both in quantity and quality by activities of those upstream. Appropriative rights may likewise be im- paired in quantity and presumably in quality although case law is generally not clear as to the latter. With respect to appropriative rights, waste dischargers generally cannot be required to continue a discharge, even if beneficial uses have developed which are dependent on that flow. Water rights are generally considered either explicitly or implicitly in water quantity planning such as Level B. PL 92-500 and the implementing EPA regulations are silent on the subject of consideration of water rights in water quality management planning. Water quality standards established pursuant to the statute and regulations will generally protect vested water rights as regards quality. However, as noted in the preceding discussion of hydrologic effects, implementation of some water quality management plans formulated in strict conformity with PL 92—500 and the regulations could seriously decrease the amount of water available to satisfy vested water rights downstream. Water quality managment planning has generally not considered water rights and the economic and social consequences of infringement of vested rights. It is important that water rights be fully considered coordinately in all water and related resources planning activities. Social Impacts Social well—being effects of water quality management plans should be evaluated generally on the same basis as that prescribed by WRC Prin- ciples and Standards for Level B planning. Social impacts of water quality management may be complementary or supplementary to those resulting from other activities in water resources management. Here too, coordination of planning and evaluation is desirable. Energy Impacts Increasing amounts of energy will be required to provide the higher levels of treatment of wastes necessary to meet the 1983 objectives speci- fied in PL 92—500. Likewise, greater amounts of energy will be necessary to develop, treat and transport the increasing amounts of water required 5—7 ------- to meet the needs of the Nation’s growing population. For example, meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act will necessitate higher degrees of water treatment with resultant greater amounts of energy expended for many communities. As previously noted, these are significant interdependencies among the several aspects of comprehensive water resource management. In view of energy deficiencies, every effort should be made among water and related resources planning agencies to formulate coordinated plans that will tend to minimize the total expenditure of energy. Future availability of adequate supplies of energy is recognized as a serious national problem. Water is a key element in most energy pro- duction technologies in use now and expected to be employed on a widespread basis in the foreseeable future. Water resource management plans must consider both the requirements for water for energy production and the effects of use of water for energy. The forecasts of energy deficiencies and the locational flexibility of energy use make it essential that use of water for energy be a major focus of all Level B plans, as well as water quality management plans. Planning Under Uncertainty Water quality management planning and Level B planning must both be conducted under conditions of uncertainty concerning the future of important related aspects of management of the water and related resources. It is highly important, therefore, that continuing coordination be maintained with the other planning agencies and with implementing actions. Treatment of risk and uncertainty is reflected in planning horizons, evaluation of benefits and costs, financial plans and in other ways. Similar approaches would aid coordination of the programs. At the least, differing approaches to uncertainty should be expressly recognized by planning participants and coordinating agencies. Obviously, a high degree of flexibility must be incorporated in water quality management plans to enable adaptation to future changes in other aspects of management. Summary Despite a long time recognition that there is a need for comprehen- sive planning, the usual approach has been for each specialty to attempt to broaden its outlook somewhat. This is true both within and outside of the water disciplines. The housing planner now considers transportation, traffic, public recteation, location of industry, the environment and law enforcement because these factors have an effect on how and where people are likely to live. The highway planner examines the same subjects 5—8 ------- because they influence the need for roads and streets. The water quality management planner must contemplate the same factors because they impact on waste flows. How to conduct overall societal planning is far beyond the scope of this study and more than any legislative authorizations at the federal or state level have yet conceived. Within the water resources field, however, the need to comprehend both quality and quantity concerns within a single or coordinated planning structure has been addressed to some extent. The Level B plan, although until recently viewed almost entirely as a developmental tool oriented toward projects, is the closest of the several planning concepts to a comprehensive approach. This is especially the case if it can be made in practice to give the requisite degree of attention to quality considerations. Consequently, it is the type of planning which should be put to use in aid of the purposes of water quality management planning envisioned in PL 92-500. Planning for water quality management should be viewed and accomplished as one component of planning for comprehensive management of water and related resources. Water quality management planning should fully con- sider the possible effects of potential future developments for control, development arid use of water resources in the river basin involved on the hydrologic regimens, in both quantity and quality, of the surface and ground waters. Likewise, the impacts of measures for water quality management on all other aspects of the development and utilization of the water resources involved, particularly downstream, should be evaluated. Those engaged in Level B or similar planning for control, development and use of water and related resources must consider and evaluate the potential effects of their plans on quality and on waste generation, treatment and disposal. All costs involved in these reciprocal effects should be evaluated qualitatively if impossible to quantify. The most cost effective plan for water quality management in a particular area, considered by itself, may not be the best solution for the river basin (or society) as a whole. Conversely, a plan for control, development and use of water resources which does not properly consider quality impacts may result in greatly increased costs for facilities and measures to protect and maintain quality at mandatory levels. In either case, serious mis—investments or inequities may result. The limited financial capability in any area to implement and operate water related programs must be carefully husbanded and judiciously allocated to achieve the maximum benefits possible. The objectives should be to produce fully coordinated plans for com- prehensive management of the water resources involved, including water quality management in accordance with federal and state mandatory policies, which will result in the best net mix of economic, environmental and social benefits. 5-9 ------- APPENDI CES ------- J PPENDIX A DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL CASE STUDIES Identification by the Contractor of Level B studies for recommendation to the Project Officer as case studies was accomplished in a two step pro- cess. Initially, attention was given to all regional or river basin studies either underway or completed. Studies eliminated from consideration as a first step included Type II studies and Level B studies completed under the “old” approach, recently initiated Level B studies and studies heavily oriented to a single functional purpose. Level B studies re- uiaining after this first screening included those for: Yakima River Basin; Hawaii (statewide); Maumee River Basin; Minneapolis-St. Paul (Lower Minnesota and Upper Mississippi Rivers); Central Snake River Basin; and Monongahela River Basin. The second step of the selection process included more detailed con- sideration of each of the remaining candidate studies. Information was collected concerning each study with respect to status, schedule for com- pletion, area encompassed, participants, study emphasis, and other study characteristics. Selection of the two studies recommended was then made based on five criteria, namely: 1. Relative completeness and availability of a Level B product prepared under the “new approach”; 2. Likelihood of access to the principal participants in the Level B study; 3. Existence within the Level B study area of a desig- nated 208 area and areawide planning organization, preferably one which had at least completed a plan of study; 4. Representativeness, to the extent possible, of other areas for which Level B studies have been or may be undertaken; 5. Diversity with respect to character of the area and interests, hydrologic characteristics, and types of problems related to water quality and water use. A-l ------- Yakima River Basin Level B studies in the Yakima River Basin were nearly complete. The recommended plan had been formulated and study participants were engaged in both preparing the study report and conducting a public review of the plan. Since the study was underway, potential for access to participants was excellent. Study emphasis was reportedly well balanced but providing extensive treatment of fish and wildlife. However, EPA was not significantly involved in the study. No areas within the Yakima River Basin had been designated by Washing- ton’s Governor for water quality management planning by local organizations. The Yakima River Basin is heavily agricultural with extensive irri- gation development and significant opportunities remain for further irrigation. The basin is similar in many respects regarding interests and hydrology to the Central Snake River Basin. Hawaii (statewide ) Level B studies in Hawaii had not progressed to the point of having alternative plans although they were under active development using the “new” approach. According to information collected, the study was heavily oriented toward economic considerations related to tourism and in ortation of truck crops. Consideration of water quality in the work performed to date had been judged inadequate and an additional $40,000 was being provided by the Water Resources Council to strengthen that aspect of the study. As with the other studies underway, access to the participants was deemed good. Water quality interests were represented largely by the State’s water quality control agency and EPA was not significantly involved in the study. Because of its orientation toward problems of special interest to Hawaii, the Level B study did not appear highly representative of the types of studies which might be undertaken for other areas. Maumee River Basin The Level B study in the Maumee River Basin was begun and pursued for four months under the old approach, then converted partially to the “new” approach. At the time of investigation the recommended plan was being prepared. Access to participants was judged good since the study was underway. Erosion and resultant sedimentation was the principal focus of the study with water quality accorded lesser attention. Several urban areas within the Basin had been either designated or were expected to be designated for water quality management planning by A-2 ------- local areawide organizations including those in and around Toledo and Lima, Ohio and South Central Michigan. The Basin provides a mix of rural and highly urbanized areas. While the mix of economies in the Basin are representative of what might be found in other areas, the representativeness of the Level B study was questionable because of the mixture of old and “new” approaches used. The general character of the area was similar to the area encompas- sed by the Monongahela River Basin Level B study. Minneapolis—St. Paul (Lower Minnesota and Upper Mississippi Rivers ) A specific effort to implement the Proposed Guidelines for Level B planning in full accord with the “new” approach was made in the study. When investigated, the study had not yet progressed to the point of identifying alternative plans. Water supply and water quality were principal focusses of the study but other functions were also included. Heavy emphasis was placed on both environmental and energy issues. No designations had been made for local water quality management planning within the Basin. While the Minneapolis-St. Paul area was being considered, the established inter—local planninq organization is appointed rather than being composed of elected officials and therefore not clearly eligible for designation. Access to participants was expected to be good in the event the Level B study was chosen for investigation. The study was also representative of others likely to be undertaken in the future with respect to the approach employed and the character of the area. Central Snake River Basin Level B investigations in the Central Snake River Basin had reportedly progressed to the point that alternative plans had been developed and a final report was being prepared. The study used the Itnewt* approach. Potential for access to participants was good. The Boise urban area had been designated for water quality manage- ment planning and the designated planning organization had prepared a project control plan. In addition, a Corps of Engineers Urban Studies project was underway in the Boise area and nearing completion. Problems in the Central Snake River Basin are typical of western areas and include water quality, maintenance of instream flows and need for water supply. Both rural and urban areas were included in the Basin. The study was judged fairly representative of other Level B planning which might be undertaken in the future. A-3 ------- Monon ahela River Basin The Level B study in the Monongahela River Basin had begun using the “new” approach prior to the availability of the proposed Guidelines. Plan- ning was complete at the time of investigation and the recommended plan accepted by the Ohio River Basin Commission. The plan was being re- viewed prior to its transmittal to the Water Resources Council. Access to participants was thought to be good. Emphasis in the study had been placed most heavily on acid mine drainage. Beyond that, other functional purposes had been accorded more or less balanced consideration. A major study specifically concerning acid mine drainage had been completed by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Both rural and urban areas were included in the Level B study area. Pittsburgh, lying at the downstrea n fringe of the Basin had been designated for water quality management planning. However, little progress had been made in developing the project work plan. Summary Access to planning participants was assured in all of the areas considered. Three of the likely candidates, Yakima River Basin, Hawaii and Minneapo- lis—St. Paul Level B studies, did not include a local area designated pur- suant to Sec. 208 for water quality management planning. In addition, both Hawaii and St. Paul were engaged in development of alternative plans and it was not assured that a relatively complete product would be available during the course of the investigation. The Hawaii Level B study was also known to be deficient in consideration of water quality. The Maumee River Basin Level B study was not wholly representative of the “new” approach. In addition to meeting all of the established criteria, selection of the Central Snake and Monongahela Level B studies offered several useful contrasts including: 1. representativeness of both eastern-and western situ- ations with respect to interests and types of problems to be addressed; 2. inclusion of a situation in which aCorpsof Engineers urban study was in progress; 3. study leadership by a single state (Idaho) and a river basin cc runission (Ohio River Basin Commission); 4. location of the designated water quality management planning area at the upper and lower end of the Level B study area. A-4 ------- APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES SUBJECT Basis of Guidance LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES P 1 REAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATEF. QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Statutory Sections 103 and 204 of the Water Resources Planning Act, Public Law 89-80 (42 U.S.C. 1962 et. seq.] Section. 209 of Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92—500 (33 U.S.C. 1151]. Sections 208 and 303(e) of the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92—500 (33 U.S.C. 1151]. Regulatory Principles and Standards for Planning Water and Related Land Resources; 38 FR 24788 September 10, 1973. 40 FR Part 6, Preparation of En- vironmental Impact Statements: Inter- im Regulations . Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 138 , July 7, 1974. 40 CFR Part 35, Grants to State and Designated Areawide Planning Agencies — Conditions, Policies, and Procedures , Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 230, November 28, 1975. 40 FR Part 105, Public Participa- tion in Wat3r Pollution Control . Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 163, August 23, 1973. 40 FR Part 130, Policies and Pro- cedures for the State Continuing Planning Processes . Federal Regis- ter, Vol. 40, No. 230, November 28, 1975. 40 ‘R Part 131, Preparation of Water Quality Management Plans . Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 230, November 28, 1975. ------- COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (cönt ) Proposed guidelines are heavily oriented toward identification of the sequential steps which are to take place in planning and to displaying information developed as planning proceeds. Little emphasis is placed on how to carry out individual plan- ning tasks. Use of the Guidelines requires reader to be familiar with planning tech- niques and disciplines as well as the regu- latory base. Guidelines do not frequently cite their statutory or regulatory base and are intended to provide guidance in following the intent of the Principles and Standards rather than their direct application. AREAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Guidelines are oriented toward dis- cussion of major planning tasks with respect to detailed requirements to be met. Less information is provided on the sequence of the planning pro- cess. Includes many references to statutory base and provides some in- terpretation. Effective use of the Guidelines requires detailed under- standing of statutory and regulatory base and planning procedures. SUBJECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES Guidelines WRC Proposed Guidelines for Regional or River EPA Guidelines for Areawide Waste Basin Planning (Level B), March 1976; for field evaluation, subject to revision. Treatment Management Planning, August 1975. Objectives Resolve near and mid—term problems and pro— vide a basis for implementation planning. Identify contributions of alternative plans to national economic develoixnent and en- vironmental quality objectives, Identify controls, regulatory pro- grams, and management agencies necessary to obtain the 1983 national water quality goal and the established state water quality standards. 9 , p ., Content, Form and Organization General ------- COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS ANI) GUIDELINES (con t’d) ABEAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Treatment of Re- lated Programs Lists 10 other programs (including Water Quality that should be integrated into Level B planning. Does not describe the nature of the relationship or how integration is to be achieved; coordination with other programs provided through Planning Board. Describes relationships to other water quality programs, other EPA programs, and other areawide planning programs. References other programs as sources of information and data. Provides for co- ordination with other programs through required advisory committee. Regu- lations specify information to be ob- tained from Level B studies where available. Agreements for coordination of planning programs have been entered into with several other Federal Agencies. SUBJECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES 9, Comprehensiveness Is the principal document to be available Guidelines are supplemented by large for guidance of Level B planning other than number of handbooks, memorandums and several WRC policy statements. Parallel R&D reports, some of which are relied “procedure” documents are to be developed on for significant guidance (e.g., by each WRC member agency to apply the Work Plan Handbook, Interim Output Principles and Standards to their relevant programs. Evaluation Handbook and Administrative Memoranda.) Level of Detail Guidelines are specific with respect to role of Level B studies and steps toward study initiation. General in interpretation of Principles and Standards. “Comment” in— cluded to clarify the Guidelines. Case studies included to illustrate application of Principles and Standards. Relatively uniform and detailed de— scription of what is to be done. Little detail on how to do necessary analyses. ------- COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (con ted) AREAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Study Funding Federal funding appropriated annually to WRC for transfer or disbursement. Guidelines do not specify with respect to non-federal funding. Usual study amount approximately $750,000 for two year study. $200,000,000 authorized. Not dealt with in Guidelines. Statutes provide federal grants to designated agencies. Grant program to states being initiated. Graritees manage and disburse funds. Study amounts variable ($300,000 to +1,000,000) for two year study. Additional authorizations pending (May 1976). SUBJECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES Approach to Planning Individually identified as part of study Not included as part of Guidelines. Study Area De— lineation initiation process. Usually on hydrologic basis, sometimes with state boundaries bounding study reach. Generally large areas (i.e., several thousand square miles). Areas delineated in designation process and statute (statewide). Designated areas usually based on county, SMSA, or other political boundaries. Study Organiza- Studies optional. May be requested through Studies mandated by statute on rigid tion and Initiation RBC or other regional sponsor. Must be recosm ended by WRC. Guidelines provide moderately detailed description of initi— ation process. Flexibility exists in or— ganization and contents of Proposal to Study and plan of study. time frame. Planning Guidelines do not address study organization, and initiation except public participation process. Organization and initiation processes are detailed in statute and grant application regulations ------- COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (coni ’d) AREAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES MAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Study Emphasis Integrated planning to resolve problems iden- tified in Level A studies, identify needed Level C studies, establish implementation priorities for program, project and manage- ment proposals. Implementation of regulatory systems, coordination of construction, establish- ment of continuing planning process to improve water quality. SUBJECT 9, U I Study Adminis- Guidelines suggest: Planning board of Fed— Planning Guidelines do not address. tration era]. and state. members; Study Manager; Plan— Grantee manages study with Planning sing staff; task forces; Citizens Advisory Advisory Committee having specified Committee and Scientists Advisory Committee. minimum membership. Usually full time Entire effort under supervision of RBC or study manager with several staff mem— other regional sponsor. bers and task forces. Problem Identi— Guidelines address selection of problems Statutes specify problems as well as fication for planning. Problems are to be described by study team, verified with local experts as to existance and presented to public for selection of study focusses. Problems ad— dressed are to be regional, related to land and water management and topics of public concern. Very flexible with respect to types of problems considered. No guidance pro- vided on how to analyze problems. minimum levels of solution for several types of problems. Guidelines provide direction on general steps toward ama- lyzing the magnitude and importance of problems. ------- COMPARISON OP PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (con t’ d) Numerous alternatives may be generated in the planning process which represent dif- ferent ways to achieve specified National Economic Development and Environmental Quality objectives and mix of objectives. ABEAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAOEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Alternatives address same objectives but may propose different means of accomplishment. SUBJECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES 9, a’ Information and Data Principal needs for information and data are Needs for information include detailed Requirements and related to problem identification, water and information on demography, water quality, Sources land availability, hydrology and basin manage— ment plans. Sources of information are Type A and project studies, state plans, federal and state agencies. facilities, land use, hydrology, costs, financial capability and legal author— ity. Sources include other area plans, state agencies, federal agencies, local agencies, monitoring programs, inven- tories and specialized investigations. Types and Detail Reliance placed on expert judgment. No de— Detailed analyses of water quality; of Analyses tailed studies of benefits, costs, allo— cation, cost sharing, etc. Principal analyses are sensitivity of plan to assump— tions, outputs of plans and interfaces between NED and EQ plans. legal, financial, and institutional factors; land use: projections; etc. No benefit analysis required. Cost-ef— fectiveness analyses to be made. Generation of Alternatives ------- COMPMISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (cont’ 1 4) Suggests optional use of Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to advise on problems and soliltions and participation of CAC chair— man on work groups or planning board. Suggests procedures for appointment of CAC members. Describes purpu es and procedures for public participation at each stage of study. ANEAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Largely handled in separate regulations which provide explicit requirements. Guidelines describe the ways to meet requirements. Substantial guidance on purpose and procedures. Implementation Continued Plan- ning No provision for continued planning cp’ : where rivet basin commissions are euo ved. Updating may be proposed whenever e ents Dictate. Responsibility for initiating updating not assigned. Specific requirements for continued piar,ninq ir.ciudine matters to Sc con— sidered, freq iency uf upd t!ng and :cc— sponsibi].ity for accomplishxnent. SUB .3ECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES 9, - .4 Selection of Final Study team selects plan on basis of NED and Designated planning agency selects Plan EQ. Guidelines discuss view of alternatives, procedures for re— plan based on cost—effectiveness to meet legislated minimum goals. State and EPA must approve plan. Guidelines provide lists of points to be compared among alternatives in making selection and format for display of alternatives. Plan Evaluation Analysis of tradeoffs with sideration of implications decisions. subjective con- of component Cost-effectiveness to meet established Water Quality standards. Public Parti- cipation ------- COMPARISON OF PLANNING REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES (cont .d) SUBJECT LEVEL B PROPOSED PLANNING GUIDELINES AREAWIDE AND STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLItNNTNG REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES 9$ Recommended Plan Studie8 are to identif agencies which probably should undertake implementation based on willingness, capability, desire and other factors. Acceptance of imple- mentation responsibility through review process. Monitoring of implementation recommended. No penalties for lack of implementation. Implementation agencies are primarily federal—state. Items to be implemented include further studies, research, Level C projects, regional growth and resource strategies. Level B plans are an intermediate step toward implementation. Even after their approval, further and more de- tailed planning and additional de- cisions by others are usually required. Identification of implementation agencies having specific legal authorities is required. Governor assigns implemen- tation responsibilities. Implementation arrangements including financing, legal, and other become part of state plan. Potential for enforcing compliance through NPDES program and 201 grants. Imple- mentation agencies are primarily local. 208 plans once certified by the Governor and approved by EPA are ready for imple- mentation. ------- |