September 1974
J& »*^
$ m* \
w
% PRO^°
Guidelines for Preparation
of
Water Quality Management Plans
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION
OF
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLANS
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHDKjrON, D. C. 20460
SEPTEMBER 1974
-------
D Sr 4 ,
____ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
All Water Quality Officials:
The enactrrent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Auendnents
of 1972 iirposes several legislative ir ndates with respect to the
developrent of planning docizents to be used to coordinate and direct
water pollution abateiient efforts. The purpose of basin plans is to
coordinate and direct activities related to water quality !nanageirent on
a river basin scale.
Tbe basin plan is neither a broad water and related land resources
plan nor a basinwide facilities plan. Sinply stated, the basin plan is
a n nagenent dociirent that identifies the basin’s water quality problerrE
and sets forth a rerredial program to alleviate those probleits. ¶1k
achieve this objective, the basin plan should be designed to provide the
necessary analysis for basin rr nagerrent decisions. reover, there must
be a flexible revision nechanism to reflect changing conditions in the
basin. A basin plan should be a dynamic Ir nagenent tool, rather than a
rigid, static carpilation of data and material.
Specifically, the basin plans will provide for orderly water
quality manageirent by:
(1) Identifying Probleirs: determining existing water quality,
applicable water quality standards, and point and non-point sources of
pollution.
(2) Determining Priorities: assessing water quality and abateirent
needs so as to establish priorities for awarding construction grants,
processing permits, arid taking other needed steps to achieve water
quality goals.
(3) Scheduling Actions: setting forth carpliance schedules or
target abaterrent dates and indicating necessary State arid local
activities.
(4) Coordinating Planning: identifying needs and priorities for
201 facility plans and 208 areawide plans within the basin and
reflecting the results of those activities.
-------
2
I expect these guidelines to serve continuously as a useful planning
tool. ‘lb inpro’ve the usefulness of these guidelines, we need constructive
uments and suggestions reflecting your usage experience. Such ments
nay be furnished to the apprcpriate FPA Regional J dministrator, or to the
Director, Water Planning Division ( !-454), Washington, D.C. 20460.
FollcwLng revisicms, you will receive revised pages of the guidelines.
Ccpies of the guidelines may be obtained fran the EPA I gional Office
in your area.
; /
Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
A. Forward 1
B. Scope and purpose 2
C. Relation with other plans 5
D. Timing of planning 7
E. State/EPA agreement on level of detail 8
and timing of basin plan preparation
F. Definitions 8
II. Commencing the Basin Plan
A. Assemble background information 13
B. Identify and classify segments 15
C. Determine order of segment analyses 16
III. Water Quality Segment Analyses
A. Assemble data for the segment 18
B. Determine total maximum daily loads 18
C. Categorize and rank significant dischargers 18
D. Assess non—point sources 19
E. Determine waste load allocations 19
F. Define effluent limitations for significant 25
dischargers
G. Establish schedules or targets for 25
dischargers
H. Assess municipal facilities needs 26
IV. Effluent Limitation Segment Analyses
A. Describe existing water quality and 32
applicable water quality standards
B. Analyze projected water quality for 32
compliance with antidegradation principles
C. Categorize and rank significant dischargers 33
D. Assess municipal facilities needs 34
E. Establish compliance schedules or targets 34
for significant dischargers
F. Assess non—point sources 34
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
•V. Assembling the Basin Plan
A. Maps 35
B. Recommendations for revising water quality 35
standards
C. Segment classification 36
D. Priorities 36
E. Industrial discharge inventory 36
F. Municipal discharge inventory 36
G. Permit issuance target dates 37
H. Non—point sources 37
I. Land use policies and controls 37
J. Disposal of treatment plant residuals 38
K. Refine monitoring programs and data 38
L. Relationship with other plans 38
M. Legal basis of plan; Enforcement 38
N. Certifications 39
0. Individual segment analyses 39
i v
-------
TABLES
1. Basin Planning System for 303(e) Plans 3
2. Annual State Planning & Management Actions 6
3. Basin Planning Elements 11
V
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Forwa .
These guidelines describe the preparation of basin
plans pursuant to the State continuing planning process
(Section 303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 and L C CFR Part 130-131). They are
intended for use as the basin planning methodology by State
and local personnel in preparing water quality management
plans and by members of the public who may wish to review
and comment on the plans during their development.
Additional guidelines will be issued regarding assessment of
municipal needs and for plan elements to be included in plan
revisions, including guidelines on water quality standards
revisions, non—point sources, residual waste control, arid
land use.
The 1972 Amendments establish a national goal of water
quality suitable for fishing and swimming by mid—1983, and
they call for a two—stage program for attaining that goal.
The principal means of water quality control for point
sources of pollution will be uniform levels of effluent
limitations. Limitations to be achieved by the first stage,
mid-1977, will be based on current technology, which must be
supplemented in individual cases by any higher level
effluent limitations necessary to achieve applicable water
quality standards. The second stage will necessitate higher
control levels in order to achieve the 1983 requirements.
Basin planning is a major element in the State water
quality management system for implementing these
requirements and for defining and achieving national water
quality goals. Each plan will provide for orderly water
quality management by:
o Outlining a plan—-organizing information and
selecting management actions.
o Determining priorities——assessing water quality
and abatement problems and needs throughout the
basin including recommendations for revising
water quality standards to reflect national goals
of swimmable water, where attainable, and
establishing priorities which will be the basis
for awarding grant assistance and taking other
steps including non-point source controls to
achieve water quality goals.
-------
o Scheduling action-—setting forth compliance
schedules or taraet..abatement dates and
indicating necessary State and local activities
such as timely permit processing and construction
grant awards.
0 coordinating planning--establishing goals and
identifying needs for other planning activities,
i.e., local 201 facility plans, 208 areawide
plans, 2O Level B basin plans, and other water
resource related plans, and reflecting the
results of those activities.
The basic steps to accomplish this planning are set
forth in these guidelines. A summary of the basic planning
system is shown in Table 1.
B. Sco and purp .
A basin plan is a water quality management plan for the
streams, rivers, lakes, and tributaries and the total land
and surface water area in one of the basins defined by EPA,
or any other basin unit agreed upon by the State(s) and the
Regional Administrator(s). In the case of Interstate areas,
the basin plan should conform to the basin plan of the
neighboring State. The purpose of the plan is to coordinate
and direct the State’s water quality decisions on a river
basin scale. The plan is neither a broad water and related
land resources plan nor a basinwide facilities plan. It is
a document that identifies and then sets forth measures to
correct the basin’s water quality problems including a
determination of existing water quality; recommendations for
revision of water quality standards; and determination of
significant point and non-point sources of pollution. The
basin plan sets forth a remedial program for those problems
including effluent limitations or other cortrol strategies;
identification of 201 facility planning; designated 208
areawide planning needs; priorities for municipal facilities
planning and for construction grants; and the timing of the
plan implementation. Such actions should lead to an
effective approach to pollution control in that basin.
Except in the simplest of situations, basin planning is
conducted through the analysis of individual segments (see
40 CFR 130.2(m)) as described in Chapters II, III, and IV of
these guidelines. The classification of a segment
determines the order and level of planning for the segment.
This classification is discussed in detail in Chapter II.
The basin plan is the result of aggregating the individual
segment analyses.
2
-------
TABLE 1
BASIC PLANNING SYSTEM FOR 303 (s) PLANS
ASSEMBLE INFORMATION:
(1) Wat e rqualityda*a
(2) Water quality standards
(3) Inventory of dlachergas
(4) Existing and projected
population, emp4oyment
and land use
-------
Basin management planning and actual water quality
management in the basin are continuing, integrated processes
for taking immediate program actions. The basin plan will
be periodically reviewed as additional information and
knowledge are obtained, initial objectives are accomplished,
other planning is completed, and available resources and
capabilities increase. The plan will be expanded and
strengthened over time to produce sounder management
decisions and direct further abatement actions, such as non—
point source control alternatives. This emphasis is not
designed to preclude early non—point source abatement
considerations. It does mean, however, that point source
abatement considerations must be scheduled in the basin
plan; non—point source actions can be delayed until later
revisions of the plan.
Basin planning during fiscal years l97 4 1975 will be
primarily directed toward managing the abatement and control
of point sources of pollution in the basin for the immediate
five year period, with particular emphasis on the issuance
of N?DES permits, and toward laying the groundwork for
subsequent planning. The basic objectives of plans during
this period are:
o To establish effluent limitations and compliance
schedules or target abatement dates for point
sources, leading to achievement of existing water
quality goals;
o To identify municipal waste treatment facilities
needs;
o To direct construction grant awards on an
abatement priority basis leading to
implementation of those limitations and
schedules;
o To identify and schedule further needed actions,
including localized planning and additional data
collection.
Basin plan revisions after July 1, 1975, shall consider
where changes have occurred, current actions with respect to
the most recent data or analysis and shall concentrate, if
appropriate, on the identification and evaluation of methods
and procedures (including land use requirements) to control,
to the extent feasible, non—point sources of pollution.
The basin planning steps described in 40 CFR Part 131
and further discussed in these guidelines are necessary to
4
-------
accomplish these management objectives properly. These
objectives will be programmed on a yearly basis in the
annual State strateqy (see Section 106 of the Act and UC CFP
Part 35, Subpart B). The information developed will also
help to identify the basin’s longer range planning needs.
C. 1atjon_ tho her_plans.
Three types of water quality plans are provided by law:
basin planning (Section 303 (e)); facilities planning
(Section 201); and designated areawide waste treatment
management planning (Section 208).
Basin plans are the water quality management plans for
the waters of the State. Together they provide, Statewide,
an analysis of water quality and waste source problems and a
description of remedial actions. Their primary use is as a
management guide for area actions such as grant awards and
the identification of needed intensive local planning.
Development of basin plans is an integral part of the State
water quality planning process. Table 2 depicts the
interrelationships of the planning process.
In contrast with the Statewide character of basin
planning, facilities planning under Section 201 of the Act
and areawide waste treatment management planning under
Section 208 are limited to geographical areas under local
jurisdictions. In considering treatment or control
requirements, they study the cost effectiveness of
alternative waste treatment management techniques and
systems. Section 201 planning is directly related to a
publicly owned treatment works to be constructed with
Federal grant money; Section 208 provides comprehensive
planning and regulation in an area having substantial water
quality control problems and must result in a wastewater
management program covering all point and, if appropriate,
non—point sources of pollution in that area.
The need for 201 and 208 planning may be identified
through the basin planning analysis, and 201/208 plan
objectives must be consistent with objectives established by
the plan for the basin in which they are located.
Correlatively, basin plans and revisions to basin plans
pursuant to the continuing planning process must reflect the
objectives and goals of completed 201 and 208 plans.
In addition to the three types of water quality plans,
Section 209 directs the Water Resources Council to prepare
comprehensive, interdisciplinary water and related land
plans for all regions or river basins in the United States
5
-------
TABLE 2
ANNUAL STATE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
1
MUNICIPAL FACIUTIES
BASIN ILANS
GOALS AND PRIORITIES IN BASIN.
IDENTIFY EXISTING WATER QUALITY
AND STANDARDS. DETERMINE MAXI-
MUM ALLOWABLE DAILY LOADS. AL-
LOCATE LOADS. INCORPORATE EX-
ISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS OR
SET TARGET LIMITATIONS. INCORP-
ORATE EXISTING SCHEDULES OR SET
TARGET ABATEMENT DATES IDENTIFY
AND SET TARGET DATES FOR OTHER
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
IN BASIN, SUCH AS STATEWIDE NON-
POINT SOURCE FROGRAMS AND AREA-
WIDE PLANNING.
WIT11 N BASIN (201 )
SPECIFIC FACILITIES
PLANS. ENGINEERING
REQUIREMENTS AND
SCHEDULES; GRANT
AWARDS; CONSISTENCY
WITH 303(e) PLANS
AND PRIORITIES
PERMITS WITHIN BASIN
(402) SPECIFIC EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS AND SCHED-
ULES CONSISTENT WITH
303(e) PLANS AND
PRIORITIES.
OTHER PLANNING WITHIN
BASIN. INCLUDES AREA-
WIDE PLANS (208) NON-
POINT SOURCE PROGRAMS,
CONSISTENT WITH 303 (e)
PLANS AND PRIORITIES.
CURRENT WATER
QUALITY
AL S STATE
-SIg I .
STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT
OF WATER QUALITY PRO-
BLEMS AND THEIR CAUSES.
APPROACH TO SOLVING
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
INCLUDING NON-POINT
SOURCE STRATEGY
LISTING OF GEOGRAPHICAL
AND DISCHARGER PRIORI-
TIES RELATIVE TO THE
PROBLEMS.
LISTING OF PRIORITIES AND
SCHEDULES FOR CONSTRUC-
TION GRANTS, BASIN PLANS
AND OTHER PROGRAM ACTIONS.
ANNUAL STATE PROGRAM (106).
MUNICPAL FACILITIES . ANNUAL MUNICIPAL INVEN-
TORY AND RANKING; PRIORITIES FOR TREATMENT
WORKS. PROJECT LIST FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
TO BE AWARDED DURING YEAR. MUNICIPAL PERMITS
TO BE PROCESSED DURING YEAR.
INDUSTRIAL SORUCES . ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY
AND RANKING. iNDUSTRIAL PERMITS TO BE PROCESSED
DURING YEAR
PLANS . BASIN PLANS, AREAWIDE PLANS AND FACILITIES
PLANS TO BE COMPLETED DURING YEAR.
MONITORING . DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM FOR YEAR.
ENFORCEMENT . REPORT ON ACTIONS IN PROGRESS AND
TO BE UNDERTAKEN.
TRAINING . SIZE AND NATURE OF TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM.
ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM. INCLUDING PERSONNEL
AND RESOURCES.
EVALUATION OF
PROGRAM ACHIEVE-
MENTS TO DATE
ANNUAL EPA
GUIDANpE.
STATEWIDE NON-POINT SOURCE
POSSIBLE DETERMINATION BY THE GOVERNOR THAT
CERTAIN NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT AND REGU-
LATION PROCESSES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED BY THE
GOVERNOR FOR APPLICATION TO ALL REGIONS WITHIN
THE STATE.
-------
by January 1, 1980. These Level B studies are prepared to
address complex long range problems. 208 areawide plans and
basin plans should be consistent with complete Level B
studies.
D. Timing of 2lannin .
1.
Implementation of the planning and management
provisions of the Act is, by law, sequenced over time. The
development of the 303(e) process was required within 120
days of enactment (October 13, 1972), and NPDES permits are
to be issued by December 31, 19714. The allocation of
wastewater discharge loads is required by FY 75. Areawide
planning is to be underway before FY 76. Thus the Act
places initial impetus on the State planning processes and
basin plans. 1 framework is to be developed for the
increasingly complex planning schedule to follow.
Basin plans and facilities plans are interdependent.
Facilities investment factors such as the number, location
and magnitude of waste discharges in the basin will be
addressed in basin plans. By contrast, areawide planning
involves a delayed start—up and additional complex planning
determinations. Areawide planning will be directed toward
the law’s longer range goals, including achievement of the
levels of treatment required for July 1, 1983.
2. Timing arno
All basin plans must be submitted by July 1, 1975,
unless an extension has been granted by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to the State/EPA agreement on level
of detail and timing of basin planning as outlined in
Section E, below. The timing for completion of individual
basin plans will vary according to the severity of water
quality problems in the planning area and other factors as
the State in agreement with the Regional Administrator may
deem appropriate. Factors may include plan complexity or
the number of sources in an area that are high on the
State’s municipal and industrial priority list. The
schedule of plan preparation developed as a part of the
continuing planning process will establish basin plan
completion dates.
3. Timing of
A basin plan should present basinwide goals to be
achieved within a 20 year time frame and should detail the
7
-------
management actions necessary for the immediate 5 year
period. Completed basin plans must be revised at least
every five years, including revisions to reflect new
information from facilities plans, permits, or additional
monitoring and surveillance. Required Management actions
must also be updated for the immediate 5 year period (see ‘40
CFR l3l.5O5). Revisions on a more frequent basis should be
made where significant changes occur. Revisions to plans
should be expanded to include all elements required by
l3l.202 of the regulations.
E. State/ PA greement leve1 f_det il
tirniri of basin plan preparation .
The level of detail of planning for the basin planning
elements described in S131.201 and in Table 3, Chapter II of
these guidelines, should be determined by an agreement
between the State and the appropriate Regional
Administrator. In addition, the agreement should specify
the timing for basin plan preparation, particularly where
basin plans will be submitted after July 1, 1975. The State
will provide a proposed schedule for basin plan preparation
and proposed level of detail of basin planning as part of
the annual State strategy. 7 pproval of the Section 106
State program including the State strategy will serve as
approval of the schedule and level of detail of basin
planning.
F. Definitions .
Certain terms used frequently in these guidelines
require a brief explanation. The regulations contain
further definitions. (See (40 CFR 130.2).
1. “303(e) plans”, “basin plans” and “water quality
management plans” are the same——they all refer to
the plans described in these guidelines.
8
-------
2. “Water Quality segments” are segments where it is
known that water quality does not meet applicable
water quality standards and which is not expected
to meet water quality standards even after the
application of the effluent limitations required by
Section 301(b) (1) (A) and 301(b) (1) (B) of the Act.1/
3. “Effluent Limitation segments” are segments where
water quality is meeting and will continue to meet
applicable water quality standards or where there
is adequate demonstration that water quality will
meet applicable water quality standards after the
application of the effluent limitations required by
Section 301(b) (1) (A) and 301(b) (1) (B) of the Act.
Lt. “Significant discharge” means any point source
discharge for which timely management action must.
be taken in order to meet the water quality
objectives for the basin within the period of the
current plan. The significant nature of the
discharge is to be determined by the State but
must, as a minimum, include any discharge which is
causing serious or critical water quality problems
relative to the segment to which it discharges.
5. “Loads” or “loadings” are quantities of pollutants
in the water. The total load is an instream
amount; the total maximum daily load is the amount
which may be added by all sources (without
violating water quality standards); load allocation
refers to the amount of the total maximum daily
load which, it is determined, may be added by an
individual source. The load allocations are
reflected in the effluent limitations (defined in
S130.2) assigned to individual point sources.
1/ The effluent limitations required by Sections
301(b) (1) (A) and (B) are base level limitations consisting
generally of best practicable control technology currently
available (BPT) for industrial point sources and secondary
treatment for municipal sources. BPT and secondary treat-
ment are defined in regulations issued by the Administrator.
9
-------
6. “Targets” are goals. They are not directly
enforceable but become binding when incorporated
into a permit or other Federal or State regulatory
mechanism. For example, a target abatement date is
a single date when it is expected that needed
remedial actions will have been completed. This is
in contrast with a permit’s schedule of compliance,
which is a formal, binding sequence of dates for
implementing specific actions (See Section 502(17)
of the Act).
7. “Milestones” are interim dates in a schedule of
compliance or other action timetable. Their
inclusion allows measurement of progress towards
achievement of the final objective (requirements
for permit schedules of compliance are set forth in
Z&O CFR l24.4L ).
8. “Municipal needs” means the total capital funding
required for construction of the publicly owned
treatment works which are required to meet national
water quality objectives as reflected in Section
301 and 302 of the Act ( l30.2(i)). The estimate
of needs is the basis for allocation of Federal
construction grant monies under Section 205.
10
-------
TABLE 3
BASIN PLANNING ELEMENTS
Water Effluent
Quality Limitation
Segments Segments
1. Inventory and ranking
of significant dischargers X X
2. Schedule of compliance or
target dates X X
3. Assessment of municipal
needs X X
q Determination of total maximum
daily loads x
5. Established or targeted load
allocations arid effluent
limitations X
6. Assessment of non—point sources
of pollution* X
7. Residual waste controls X X
8. Recommended water quality standards
revisions X X
9. Planning relationships X X
10. Appropriate monitoring and surveil-
lance programs X x
11. Interstate/Intergovernmental
cooperation X x
*Non—point source contribution assessment and control
measures may be done in effluent limitation segments, if
necessary.
11
-------
II. COMMENCING THE BASIN PLAN
Basin plans will be assembled from information
developed by segment analyses. The basin planning system
consists of three phases: (1) assemble information,
identify segments, and classify segments; (2) analyze
segments; and (3) compile basin plan. The first phase is
described in this chapter, the second phase is discussed in
Chapters III and IV and the third phase appears in Chapter
V.
This chapter describes the steps to be taken in
commencing the basin plan, including the classification of
segments. Planning should proceed pursuant to the approved
State continuing planning process. Citations in this
chapter are to relevant regulations under Chapter L O of the
Code of Federal Regulations (see Appendix A). The
applicable regulations should be consulted throughout the
plan’s preparation.
A. Assemble backqround_information.
1. Assemble_ ist1n water a_a 2te
applicable standards .
Existing water quality and related hydrologic and
hydraulic data may consist of outputs from ongoing State or
Federal permanent monitoring stations or field surveys, from
permit applications or other discharge—related data or from
other sources. Data should be current and accurate.
Applicable water quality standards should be noted.
In some segments, additional monitoring may be needed
to classify the segment with certainty or to execute waste
loads allocations. The following items should be
considered.
a. Select a tentative model to relate source loads
to water quality (unless an existing, current
model is avaliable).
b. Design, schedule and execute a data collection
program (see Chapter III, Section I and 40 CFR
Part 35, Subpart B, Appendix A).
c. Classify the segment as either Effluent
Limitation or Water Quality, and proceed
according to the guidelines for those segments.
13
-------
Water quality standards are to be reviewed at least
once every three years. As reflected in Sections 303(c) and
30l4(a), the goal of the next revisions, where feasible, will
be to set standards that protect aquatic life and primary
contact recreation (swimming). Recommendations for
revisions of water quality standards will be accomplished as
part of the basin planning process. The segment analysis
and/or the basin plan should consider the technical and
economic feasibility of point and non—point source controls
in relation to the desired uses and criteria. It is
recognized that naturally occuring conditions or relatively
uncontrollable non—point source pollution could result in
failure to meet that goal. However, it is not intended that
point source pollution, whether individual or aggregated, be
the prevailing reason for not achieving a swimmable water
standard.
2. ç nstruct an invej ç y _ of
The inventory of dischargers should identify and locate
all significant dischargers. Existing information as to the
amount, characteristics and treatment of the effluents from
each significant source, including information from National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”)
applications or permits, if any, should he described in the
plan. Non—point sources may be deemphasized until after the
first round of NPDES permits for point sources has been
fully processed. The above inventories should include all
sources which are required to obtain permits under the
NPDES.
3. Assemble estimates of existing conditions and con-
stru
Estimates of the existing population, employment, and
land use in the basin should be assembled as a basis for
assessing existing patterns of the generation of pollutants
and as a basis for projecting the amount and spatial
distribution of future waste loads. Population data are
available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce). Land use data should be obtained from
official planning agencies within the basin. To the extent
possible, in—stream quality data assembled pursuant to
Sections A and B of this chapter should be combined with
population, employment, and land use data to construct a
materials balance for each significant pollutant to provide
a basis for identifying the most significant sources of
pollution within the area.
14
-------
Base line projections of population, employment and
land use should be assembled if available or otherwise
constructed. The projections provide a basis for making
projections of future patterns of waste load generation.
These projections should cover the next 20 years in 5-year
increments. They should be consistent with the most recent
demographic and economic projections developed by the Bureau
of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce) and the
Economic Research Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
and with projections used as a basis for State planning for
air quality management. The use of any projections that
deviate significantly from BEA should be justified. BEA
projections are available for States, BEA economic regions,
Water Resource Council Regions, and for Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, all of which generally
include more than a single county. If it is necessary to
disaggregate BEA projections, the assumptions made in the
disaggregation process should be made explicit. Historical
trends of county population and employment data are
available upon request from BEA. Land use projections
should be assembled with the assistance of officially
designated planning agencies in the area.
Using these projections and the best estimates of waste
load generation per unit of activity, project the
incremental impact of a five year growth in waste loads from
residential, commercial, industrial, and non—point sources.
To assure that the plan is consistent with longer range
development as well as providing for water quality
management during the immediate five year planning period,
these projections should cover the next twenty years in five
year increments.
B. Identi a clas si fy s ments.
In the basin plan each segment must be classified as
either “Water Quality” (“WQ”) or “Effluent Limitation”
(“EL”) in accordance with the definitions contained in
Chapter I, Section E of these guidelines.
The classification of a segment determines the
intensity, or level, of planning required. Water Quality
segments will require more effort than Effluent Limited
segments. Table 3 outlines the work which should be
completed for each type of segment.
The segment classifications submitted in each State’s
continuing planning process were derived from a
classification procedure which made allowances for
inadequate data. Using the information described in
15
-------
paragraphs A(1) through A(3) above, the preliminary
classifications should be confirmed or changed. The final
segment classifications are necessary to perform segment
analyses; all segment analyses must be completed before
basinwide management decisions can be made.
C. Determine order of se ent analyses.
The primary purpose for analyzing segments is to
develop the information required to write the municipal and
industrial discharge permits. Because all first round
permits should be issued by December 31, 19714, and because
the analysis of Water Quality segments will require
considerable time and effort, initial emphasis should be
placed on completing the Water Quality segment analyses as
soon as possible.
16
-------
III. WATER QUALITY SEGMENT ANALYSIS
Each Water Quality segment analysis should be prepared
as described in this chapter. Citations are to the relevant
sections of 40 CFR Part 131 (see Appendix A to these
guidelines), which should be consulted throughout the
segment analysis.
By definition, Water Quality segments will be in
violation of water quality standards even after all point
discharges receive treatment at least as stringent as
required by Section 301(b) (1) of the Act. Violation of
standards in these segments is caused either by point
sources which must be subjected to controls beyond best
practicable treatment (“BPT”) /secondary treatment or by non—
point sources which must be controlled. The objective of
Water Quality segment analysis is to determine the most
effective allocation of waste loads between all point and
non—point discharges, such that water quality standards ar
met.
The analysis should be completed for each parameter
which is in violation of water quality standards. Each
source contributing that parameter to the segment should be
identified and alternative remedial measures considered.
The final treatment control strategy for the segment should
reflect a combination of control methods which will meet
water quality standards for all water quality parameters.
Modeling is generally the appropriate method of
ascertaining total maximum daily loads and determining the
effects of the proposed alternative abatement strategies.
The modeling technique selected depends on the nature and
complexity of the problem. The technique should represent
the minimum level of sophistication needed to provide for
reliable waste load allocations (see Appendix B).
Following the development and analysis of the above
alternatives, the most effective waste treatment management
strategy is to be selected for implementation in the
segment. Detailed plans will be developed through 2C1 or
208 planning.
Planning in the segment should be consistent with
national priorities as determined by the Administrator.
EPA’s annual “Water Quality Strategy Paper” also may be
consulted for general statement of policy for implementing
the requirements of the Act. Information respecting current
priorities may be obtained from the Regional Administrator.
17
-------
Planning for the segment should take into account any
water quality or other applicable resource plan prepared or
under preparation which involves all or any part of the
basin. The basin plan of which the segment analysis is a
part will identify and discuss such other planning
activities in the basin.
A.
Assemble the data for the segment described in Sections
II. A through II. C. This is the minimum amount of data
needed to perform Water Quality segment analyses. Because
some segments are more complex than others, this data may be
insufficient and may require further surveys within the
segment. Deficiencies in data must be identified and
corrected if the segment analysis is to be reliable (see
Chapter III, Section I of these guidelines).
B. Determine total maximum daily loads. (Sl3l.3O1 )
Each water quality standards parameter being violated
or expected to be violated in the segment should be
identified and the total maximum daily loads of these
pollutants which may be added to the water body by all point
and non—point sources without violating the standard must be
determined.
Each total load limitation must be at least as
stringent as necessary to achieve the applicable standard
under the critical water quality conditions prescribed by
the standards and any conditions which should be anticipated
in the individual situation, such as seasonal waste
discharges. It must include provisions for seasonal
variation and for a margin of safety which takes into
account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluents and water quality as well as any
uncertainty resulting from insufficient data, including data
from non—point sources. Where thermal standards may be
violated, thermal loads must be separately estimated as
provided in S131.305. For all parameters the
antidegradation principle applies (see Chapter IV, of these
guidelines).
C. Categorize and rank significant dischargers. ( l3l.3Ol)
An inventory of significant municipal and industrial
sources and a ranking of significant municipal dischargers
in the segment should be assembled from the inventory for
the basin, checked for accuracy and completeness, and
revised if necessary (see Chapter II, Section A, of these
18
-------
guidelines). Significant municipal dischargers should be
ranked in order of relative impact upon segment water
quality. The inventory should reflect the relative
importance of significant industrial dischargers and should
be used for guidance in establishing the annual State
strategy.
D. Assess non—agint sources. (S 1 30.23, 131 . 306)
The segment analysis should assess the amounts and
characters of pollutants from non—point sources identified
in the area of the segment. The segment analyses should
consider agricultural, silvicultural, mining related,
construction activity related, salt water intrusion related
and other non—point source pollution to the extent provided
in l3l.306. Abatement or control strategies for non-point
sources should be evaluated. The evaluation should consider
the technical, legal, institutional, economic and
environmental impact and feasibility of alternative
procedures and methods. Consistent with national
priorities, these strategies should be developed as provided
in l3l.306 following completion of the initial planning
required as a basis for permits. Additional guidelines on
non—point source controls will be published.
E. Determine waste load allocation. ( l3l. 305)
1. General_considerations.
A waste load allocation for a segment is the assignment
of target loads to point and, if appropriate, to non-point
sources to achieve water quality standards in the most
effective manner. It involves the selection of the best
practicable water quality management alternative for the
segment over a five year period while taking cognizance of
longer range needs of the basin and of that particular
segment. The waste load allocation will contain the major
water related determinations for the area and must therefore
be consulted for specific management actions, including the
writing of conditions for NPDES permits and awarding
Construction grants.
The purpose of waste load allocations is to formally
state the actions necessary to maintain or improve the
quality of the affected waters. State and Federal water
quality agencies must have waste load allocations in order
(1) to establish a basis for assigning effluent limitations
and issuing permits to individual dischargers in order to
meet water quality standards and (2) to identify and provide
a basis for ranking needs of municipalities for which
19
-------
planning and possible construction of Federally-assisted
facilities must be initiated within the next five years.
Since a basin plan is a management plan, it prescribes
the abatement strategy for individual sources only
generally. While the plan does not determine detailed
engineering specifications for particular projects, some
knowledge of alternative facilities and nonstructural
alternatives and their associated costs is Obviously
required to develop feasible, effective allocations.
The allocations for each industrial or municipal
discharger must either result in an attainable total
effluent allowance or recognize that the restriction may
result in the discharger being forced to close or reduce its
operation to avoid being subjected to possible enforcement
actions (through action on a permit or other enforcement
mechanism under State law). To determine feasible limits
the analysis must consider generally the alternative
technical and economic capabilities available to each
discharger. Where standards are being violated because of
point source discharges, the technical requirements for some
point sources may be beyond base level effluent limitations.
The economic costs of the alternatives available to each
source must be weighed. In addition, existing information
on the trade-off s and total costs among combinations of
alternatives for multiple sources must be reviewed in search
of the mix of processes at all facilities which will result
in the most efficient overall plan for achieving standards
when all sources are in operation. Detailed consideration
of technical and economic trade—of fs between alternatives
should be included in the 201/208 plans. Information
obtained from the detailed analysis in 201/208 plans should
be reflected in basin plans.
In developing waste load allocations, the following
points must be considered:
a. Coordina j ith permits . ( l3l. 310)
Effluent limitations established by any current
permit issued prior to completion of the plan should be
incorporated in the plan. For each discharger subject
to the NPDES which has not been issued a permit, the
analysis must establish target load allocations.
Target allocations will generally be incorporated into
any subsequently issued permit, subject to all rights
of the permit applicant and other interested persons to
contest the targets. They are not enforceable until
20
-------
incorporated into a permit or otherwise made enforce-
able through State law orregulation.
b. Coordination with facilities p1 anni g .
( l3l.309; U0 CFR Part 35, Subpart E.)
Facilities planning involves detailed planning
directly related to the Federally assisted construction
of municipal waste treatment facilities. Such plans
provide for cost effective and environmentally
acceptable municipal waste treatment or control by
determining the best practicable alternative waste
management system over time, its geographic coverage,
its service of other area sources, including industrial
sources, and the nature and amount of the planned
discharge (load reduction achieved). These decisions
for the specific facility will affect not only the
source’s load allocation requirements but also the
total number of industrial and municipal sources
contributing to the total load. Analyses of the
segment and facilities planning are interdependent:
the facilities plan cannot disregard the overall
segment analysis, yet that analysis must respect the
realities of individual facilities needs and
capabilities, with particular attention to
considerations of environmental needs, cost
effectiveness, growth trends and available financing
(see paragraph Ii, below) . /
c. Relation to areawide_w tfl gfflent.
The waste load allocation process will help to
identify those areas where areawide waste treatment
management planning (Section 208 of the Act) should be
initiated. Waste load allocations and areawide
planning should be coordinated. Areawide plans should
be consistent with total loadings planned for the
segment and basin. 2/
11,2/The 201/208 plans, when completed, will supersede the
applicable portion of the basin plan with respect to
individual waste load allocations, schedules of compliance,
and facilities needs assessment. The total waste load from
the 201/208 planning area must, however, be consistent with
the applicable basin plan and the 201/208 plan must be
consistent with State and National goals and oblectives.
21
-------
d. Accommodation of_f tur _2 Q .
Growth trend information compiled for the
segment must be considered and a determination made as
to the load allotments, if any, to be reserved for
future discharges. The allotment must be consistent
with continuing achievement of standards and prevention
of significant water quality degradation (see Chapter
IV, Section 13). The growth allotment should be
separately displayed in the reported load allocation.
e. Non-pQint sources .
In allocating pollutant loads among point
sources, the pollutant contribution from non—point
sources must be considered to assure that the combined
total will not exceed applicable water quality
standards. Such contribution, should be separately
entered in the load allocation display. The long term
point source load allocations may depend upon the
abatement and control alternatives for non-point
sources.
f. Upstream contribution .
The amount of pollutants entering the segment
from upstream must be considered when determining
whether the total of proposed individual point and non-
point allowances exceeds the allowable maximum (see
Chapter Ill, Section B). For purposes of notation and
calculation, this contribution estimate necessarily
involves coordination with planning for the upstream
segment. The method of coordination, level of
certainty regarding the estimated future load, and the
time span covered is a matter of planning judgement.
Uncertainty in the waste load allocation process may
consist of: (1) uncertainty with respect to growth
projections; (2) a lack of knowledge of cause—effect
relationships between effluents and water quality; (3)
pending decisions with respect to the construction of
reservoirs, withdrawals, and other developments which could
significantly affect the assignment of effluent limitations;
and (4) uncertainty as to the quality of the data being
employed.
22
-------
th_ 9j ctions.
Unanticipated growth occuring during the period covered
by the plan could cause water quality conditions to
deteriorate. The classification of some segments may change
from Effluent Limitation to Water Quality, or in Water
Quality segments higher levels of technology could be
required to achieve standards. Since the rate of growth of
waste loads is controlled by local decisions with respect to
annexation, industrial expansion, sewer connection permits,
etc., the plan’s load projections and allocations must be
reviewed with the responsible municipalities and industries.
Lack of cause- e £ fectknowle e .
Uncertainty due to a lack of knowledge of the cause—
effect relationships among waste loads and water quality
must be taken into account in the waste load allocation
process. Experience with cause—effect models in water
quality is insufficient to provide a basis for specifying
tolerance levels for prediction errors, but the use of
sensitivity analysis is encouraged. Where the cost of
errors is relatively small, factors of safety should be
included; where the cost of errors is large, research and
monitoring to reduce uncertainty should be included in the
plan.
Pending_development.
Where there is substantial uncertainty with respect to
pending development decisions, allocations should be made
under both the assumption that development will not occur
and that the development will occur. Water quality
implications of the proposed development should then be
brought to the attention of the decision—makers concerned
with the project.
Uncertainty
High levels of confidence in the data should exist
where the costs of possible error are large. Lower con-
fidence levels can be tolerated where the resulting costs of
error are small. Additional confirmation of data should be
sought where the costs of possible error are large.
2.
The anticipated violations must necessarily result from
one of three situations: pollution primarily from non-point
23
-------
sources; pollution primarily from treatment plant effluents
after the achievement of base level limitations; or
pollution from treatment plant effluents and non-point
sources of comparable magnitude. Allocations under each of
these conditions should be as follows:
a. Dominant non point .
Where water quality standards would not be
achieved after the application of Best Available
Technology (BAT) by point sources, and the remaining
violations are predominantly caused by non—point
sources, loads should be allocated to point sources
according to BPT and secondary treatment limitations,
since water quality would not be significantly improved
through the application of higher effluent limitations.
Recommendations for non—point controls should be
included, and where these conditions occur in complex
urban—industrial or other critical areas, 208 planning
activities should be considered. Any statewide
planning under Section 208 (b) (Es) must be taken into
account.
b. Dominant point .
Where pollution from point sources after the
application of BPT and secondary treatment is
the dominant cause of anticipated violations, loads
should be allocated to achieve water quality standards
in a cost effective manner, including allocations
requiring higher levels of treatment or control. In
segments where previously developed plans are available
and up to date, these plans may be sufficient to assign
waste loads to individual sources. In other segments
evaluation of alternative load allocation strategies is
necessary to determine the most cost effective strategy
for achieving water quality standards.. Waste loads
should be allocated consistently with the preferred
strategy.
c Comparab1e oint arid non-point .
Where pollution from point sources after the
application of BPT and secondary treatment and
pollution from non—point sources—— which may include in
place or accumulated pollutants-—are of comparable
magnitude, loads should be allocated in a manner
similar to that outlined for dominant point areas,
except non—point source control alternatives should he
considered simultaneously with more stringent point
24
-------
source effluent limitations. Again, evaluation of
alternative strategies is necessary to determine a cost
effective means of achieving standards. Point source
loads should be assigned on the basis of the
alternative selected. Recommendation for non-point
controls should be included and when these conditions
occur in complex urban—industrial areas, 208 planning
should be considered. In the absence of any 208
planning, a target date for defining specific non-point
source control programs should be established.
Evaluation of alternatives, where required,
should be carried out only at the level of detail
required to execute the waste load allocation process.
The evaluation should not reach the level of
engineering design, but should consider the non-
structural alternatives.
F. Define effluen
(S 13 1. 305)
Effluent limitations, or target limitations, must be
established for significant point sources in any Water
Quality segment. Limitations must be set forth for every
pollutant discharged by the source. Effluent limitations
established in any current permit must be incorporated.
Where no permit is in effect, target limitations must be
formulated. The target limitations must be at least as
stringent as necessary to meet the requirements of the Act
and applicable regulations, and, for parameters for which
load allocations are required, the load allocations
established for each source.
The Administrator is publishing effluent guidelines de-
fining secondary treatment for municipal facilities and best
practicable technology for various classes and categories of
industrial point sources, Copies of the guidelines and in-
formation regarding them may be obtained from the Regional
Administrator. These guidelines may be used to prescribe
target limitations for specific parameters if the resulting
effluent will be consistent with the source’s assigned load
allocations. Stricter limitations must be developed where
the base level restrictions would not result in compliance
with the source’s load allocation and with water quality
standards.
G. Establish schedu1 , _ targets (9131. 302)
Schedules of compliance or target abatement dates must
be determined for point sources which are not currently in
25
-------
compliance with the effluent limitations applicable to them
and are not anticipated to be in compliance by January 1,
1975. If the State is participating in the NPDES, target
dates for the processing of permits for any source which
will not have been processed at the time of the basin plan
completion must also be set forth.
Major milestone dates from the schedules of compliance
established by current NPDES permits must be included in the
segment analysis. Target abatement dates must be developed
for all other significant sources and for any source having
a permit with an incomplete schedule.
Each schedule of compliance or target abatement date
should reflect stringent performance goals, to assure
implementation of the plan’s required effluent limitations
in the shortest practicable time. However, all dates
established by the plan must be realistic and feasible. The
schedules or targets should provide for timely
implementation of statutory goals of Section 301 whenever
the Act’s deadlines can possibly be attained. Any reasons
for not meeting a schedule or target date must be documented
by the discharger.
H. Assess_munjcipa _nee . ( 131 .303)
The segment analysis must include an assessment of
investment requirements for municipal waste treatment or
control in the seqinent. This assessment becomes part of the
bi—annual report to Congress on municipal needs which
presents investment requirements on a State—by--State basis
and governs subsequent annual construction grant
appropriations. Furthermore, the assessment is one of the
elements used in determining, reviewing and revising the
State municipal priorities list which determines the order
of construction grant awards and hence the available Federal
contribution to financing. A comparison of the municipal
needs with expected appropriations will indicate generally
the date when implementation will be feasible.
1. Summary of guirements .
The Administrator is required to report to Congress
biennially on the municipal needs of each State.
Allocation of each year’s Federal construction grant
funds among individual States, which depends on that
State’s municipal needs relative to the needs of all
States, is based on the biennial report.
26
-------
Reports are filed on February 10 of odd-numbered
years. The first report, filed February 1 , 1973, was
based on an ad hoc 1973 Survey of Needs (Form No. 0MB
158—R0017) which was filled out by State agencies and
approved by the Regional Administrators. This report
was based on best estimates by responsible officials.
Another interim survey will be conducted and submitted
to Congress on September 3, 19714. Subsequent reports
will be developed pursuant to the State’s continuing
planning process.
Within the State, allocation of the total grant
share to individual projects is determined pursuant to
an established system of priorities, prepared as
follows. First, the State develops, pursuant to its
planning process, a municipal discharge inventory
consisting of an inventory and ranking, in order of
priority, of significant municipalities. The list in-
cludes all municipalities which do not meet applicable
requirements of Sections 301 and 302 of the Act. Based
on the inventory, the State prepares an annual project
list, showing all projects for which Federal assistance
will be requested from current allotments. The
Administrator will award grants only to those proposed
projects which have received a priority certification
consistent with the approved State system. The
municipal inventory and project list are integral parts
of the annual State program, Section 1C6 (see
generally, 140 CFR SS35.5514——3(b) (1), 35.915 and
130.43)
The identification of municipal needs should be
oriented towards meeting the provisions of Sections 301
and 302 of the Act. It should be premised on the
phased achievement, by all municipal sources, of
secondary treatment, or higher treatment needs in Water
Quality segments to meet water quality standards, and
on subsequent compliance with the best practicable
waste treatment technology requirements of Section
201(g) (2) (A) (see Section 301(b) (2) (B)). Where needs
are established on the basis of water quality con-
siderations—-either because the effluents of the
municipality are contributing to a Water Quality
segment problem or by reason of a Section 302
proceeding——the source’s effluent reduction
requirements will be determined through load analysis,
discussed above.
27
-------
2. cost_esti s _ uniçip _ g j .
Plans developed under Section 303(e) will provide
the mechanism for estimating State municipal needs.
The assessment of municipal facilities investment
requirements shall include:
a. Load reduction to be achieved by each facility
and whether this reduction is required to
attain and maintain applicable water quality
standards and effluent limitations.
b. Population or population equivalents to be
served including a 20 year forecast of such
population.
c. Types of facilities needed and their investment
costs derived from approved 201/208 plans or
facilities designs and specifications.
d. In the absence of the above plans and designs,
an indication of facilities required to be
considered as an option under future 201/208
planning and preliminary estimates of their
costs.
The estimate of costs resulting from the needs survey
does not constitute a final decision governing 201 or
208 planning efforts, particularly where needs were
based upon preliminary costs as estimated in (d) above.
Rather, they represent the best initial estimate for
the future project, to be used in the interim and
subsequent biennial reports to Congress in the absence
of better estimates.
Each year, the States needs estimates, as contained
in the 303(e) plans, will be further refined, through
the continuing planning process and the completion of
additional 201 and 208 plans. Future revisions to
303(e) basin plans should reflect refinement of cost
estimates contained in completed 2 l/208 plans. Thus
the State will continue to acquire and refine
demographic data and population and employment
projections. These will support waste load forecasts
for Water Quality segments, leading to determination of
required discharge restrictions, and more accurate
needs estimates.
Since municipal needs, whether developed through
the planning process or through specific 20l/2C8
28
-------
planning, in turn influence subsequent planning
decisions, the continuing planning process and the
production of needs estimates are integrally related
and mutually supportive.
29
-------
IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATION SEGMENT ANALYSES
In Effluent Limitation segments, either water quality
is and will continue to be at least equal to applicable
water quality standards or, where water quality does not
meet the standards, it will do so after the application of
best practicable control technology by industrial sources,
secondary treatment by municipalities within the segment,
and compliance by upstream sources with requirements
applicable to them.
Effluent limitations for dischargers in EL segments are
based primarily on technology. It may become necessary in
some instances to relate the effluent limitations of
individual dischargers to water quality where anticipated
growth might cause significant degradation in water quality
even though standards would not be violated (see Section B
below).
Segment analysis in effluent limitation segments
accomplishes a variety of important oblectives:
o It establishes an orderly, visible water quality
management scheme for the segment.
o It describes existing water quality as a basis for
preventing degradation.
o It sets forth a coordinated, prioritized schedule of
compliance for all significant sources in the
segment,
o It produces an inventory of dischargers in the
segment for use in formulating the annual State
strategy which in turn is used to schedule
construction grant awards and to set forth the
State’s monitoring and surveillance program for the
year.
o It provides an assessment of needs for municipal
waste treatment or control in the segment.
Planning for each segment should take into account any
water quality or other applicable resource plan prepared or
under preparation which involves all or any part of the
basin. The basin plan of which the segment analysis is a
part will identify the relationship, indicate the current
status, and describe the extent of complimentary influence
of such other planning activities in the basin.
31
-------
Planning for each segment should be consistent with
national priorities as outlined in the annual “Water Quality
Strategy Paper.” Information respecting current priorities
may be obtained from the Regional Administrator.
Each Effluent Limitation segment analysis should be
prepared as described in this chapter. Planning should
proceed pursuant to the approved State continuing planning
process. Citations are the relevant Sections of £40 CFR Part
131 (see Appendix A to these guidelines), which should be
consulted throughout the segment analysis.
A. Describe existing
water quality standards .
Existing water quality and related hydrologic and
hydraulic data, and the water quality standards applicable
to the segment or legal citation to such standards, should
be assembled from the data and standards of the basin (see
Chapter II, Section A(1), of these guidelines).
B. Analyze projected water
j anti egradation inciples.
Among the features of the Act which compensate for
growth, and therefore contribute to the maintenance of water
quality, are:
o The progress of existing source technology standards
from BPT and secondary treatment to BAT and BPWTT.
o Revisions in effluent standards as new technology is
demonstrated.
o The upgrading of water quality standards to 1983
uses and criteria.
o Environmental impact statements for new source
permits, and for any construction of publicly owned
treatment works with Federal funds.
o Comprehensive areawide waste management authority
under Section 208, including the authority to
control land use.
o The assurance of adequate opportunity for public
comment and hearings on actions involving possible
degradation.
32
-------
These measures protect water quality from deteriorating
below designated use levels. By 1983, they will generally
çrotect water quality from deteriorating below the criteria
for fishing and swimming. They may not protect waters which
are currently above these criteria from being degraded to
those levels, however.
EPA is considering the appropriateness of national
guidelines on antidegradation that would take into account
the ways in which some States already approach the problem.
These include:
o A zoning of waters which permits no discharge of any
kind (point or non-point) in certain waters; this
is, in effect, a land use measure——it may occur
under the Wild Rivers Act or as part of a State
program to protect waters of scenic or recreational
value.
o The allowance of additional discharges, provided
each is at least equal to the quality of the
receiving waters.
o The provision for growth up to an established
maximum stream loading; the allowable load, in
turn, may be calculated against existing high water
quality, or against a percentage deterioration of
water quality. However, in no instance would the
degradation result in a use less than that
specified for 1983 under the Act.
The key elements of an antidegradation policy are a
baseline for water quality, a definition of degradation to
be applied against that baseline, and a control strategy to
insure compliance with the definition. Existing water
quality should be described in the plan. Estimates should
be used where existing data are insufficient and additional
data cannot be readily obtained.
C. cat or nd.ran (B131. 301)
An inventory of significant municipal and industrial
sources and a ranking of significant municipal dischargers
in the segment should be assembled from the inventory for
the basin checked for accuracy and completeness, and revised
if necessary (see Chapter II, Section B of these
guidelines), significant municipal dischargers should be
ranked in order of abatement priority. The inventory should
reflect the relative importance of significant industrial
33
-------
dischargers and should be used for guidance in establishing
the annual State strategy.
D. Assess rnunicipal facilities needs. (S131.303)
The segment analysis must include an assessn ent of
investment requirements for municipal waste treatment or
control in the segment. This assessment should be developed
in the same manner as employed in Water Quality segments
(see Chapter III, Section H, of these guidelines).
E. Establish compliance schedules or targets for
significant dischargers . (S131.202)
P schedule of compliance or target abatement date must
be determined for each significant point source which is not
currently in compliance with the applicable effluent
limitations and is not anticipated to be in compliance by
January 1, 1975. Schedules of compliance or target
abatement dates for Effluent Limitation segments are
developed under the same principles as control scheduling in
Water Quality segments. If the State is participating in
the NPDES, target dates for the processing of permits
respecting covered sources must also be set forth for Water
Quality segments.
F. Assess pn- ointso ces .
Consideration of agricultural, silvicultural, mining
related, salt water intrusion related and other non-point
source pollution, as provided in s131.306, is desirable, but
generally it is not required in EL planning since by
definition water quality in EL segments will meet applicable
water quality standards without additional controls on non-
point sources.
34
-------
V. ASSEMBLING THE BASIN PLAN
The basin plan consists of two major components-—the
basinwide information derived from or in support of the
individual segment analyses, and the individual segment
analyses. These components should be assembled in a single
package as described in this chapter. Each basin plan must
include the following basinwide components.
A.
1. A map of the State showing the basin in relation to
other basins, including portions of other States as
necessary to show any interstate coordination area.
2. A map or maps delineating the basin and identifying
its segments. The classification of the segments
should be indicated on the ma p (see also Section C,
below).
3. A map or maps of each segment identifying and
locating significant dischargers and monitoring
stations.
B. Recornmendat ions for_revising_w_ .
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 provide for review and revision of water quality
standards on a continuing three year cycle. The first
reviews and revisions were to establish interstate and
intrastate standards for all navigable waters which would he
in compliance with the Act as in effect immediately prior to
the date of enactment of the FWPCA Amendments of 1972 (see
Sections 303(a) and 303(b)). Guidelines were published in
January 1973 (amended in April 1973) calling for the
establishment of standards which would meet the criteria for
aquatic life and secondary contact recreation uses.
Information should be assembled and testimony taken on
the desirability and feasibility of establishing a swimmable
water standard during the public hearings on completed basin
plans. Where such information has not been assembled, due
to delay in completion of the basin plan or insufficient
data for non—point or natural sources of pollution, the
basin plan should specify the schedule which will be
followed to meet the requirements of Section 303(c) and
3014 (a). Additional guidance will be published shortly to
implement the provisions of Section 303(c) and 3CL4(a).
35
-------
Applicable water quality standards for the basin and
recommendations for revision to water quality standards if
identified in the individual segment analyses need not be
repeated in the basinwide statement. Standards for the
basin must be reviewed at least once every three years,
pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Act and ‘4C CFR 13l.308.
C. Segment classification .
The basin plan should contain a list showing the
classification of each segment in the basin, pursuant to
S130.ll (see Chapter II and Section A above). The segments
should be listed in order of abatement priority, pursuant to
s130.41. The system for ranking segments in the basin
should be consistent with the criteria for statewide ranking
of segments and applicable priorities.
D. Priorities .
The basin plan should identify and explain any
deviation from national priorities as. described in the
annual “Water Quality Strategy Paper.”
E.
The basin plan should contain an inventory and
categorization of industrial dischargers in the basin.
Significant dischargers should be ranked in order of
abatement priority; the ranking should be consistent with
the system for the State Industrial Discharge Inventory (see
S130.4L4). The basin inventory should be aggregated from the
individual segments lists and should be consistent with the
priorities set forth in those lists (see Chapter III,
Section C; Chapter IV, Section C). The basin inventory will
be used by the State in developing the Statewide inventory.
F. Municipal discharq inventory.
The basin plan should contain an inventory and ranking
of municipal dischargers in the basin. Significant
dischargers should be ranked in order of abatement priority;
the ranking should be consistent with the system for the
State Municipal Discharge Inventory (see S130.43). The
basin inventory should be aggregated from the individual
segment lists and should be consistent with the priorities
set forth in those lists (see Chapter III, C; Chapter IV,
C). The basin inventory will be used by the State in
developing the State inventory.
36
-------
• The basin plan should also show the municipal
facilities investment needs in the basin (see S131.303; see
also Chapter III, H and Chapter IV, E.)
G. dates.
If the State is participating in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, each basin plan should include
a list indicating target dates for the processing of permits
respecting any covered sources which will not have been
processed at the plan’s completion. This list should be
compiled from the individual segment analysis lists (see
Chapter tIl, G; Chapter IV, F).
H. Non—point sources.
The basin plan should provide for consideration of non—
point sources where appropriate. Consistent with national
priorities, if planning resources are limited, non—point
source planning should not be pursued to an extent which
would substantially curtail planning for point sources
subject to the NPDES.
The Governor of a State may determine that a State—
managed process to identify, evaluate and develop control
alternatives for non—point sources is needed in order to be
consistent with a statewide regulatory program. In this
case, the Governor should notify the Administrator that the
State intends to complete a non—point source control program
that will be applied to all Regions within the State (see
Section 208 (b) (Li) of the Act).
The plan should include target dates for the future
consideration of non—point sources. Full compliance with
S13l.306 may be initiated after July 1, 1975.
I. (Sl31. 06)
The basin plan should describe the extent to which land
use decisions can be influenced to complement and reinforce
the control actions required to meet water quality goals as
well as the development of sound program management. Each
plan shall set forth any procedures established to assure
land use relationships have been given adequate
consideration in the development of the plan. Additional
guidelines on land use policies and controls will be
published.
37
-------
J. Disposal of treatment giant residuals. ( l3l. 307)
The basin plan should include the controls to be
established over the disposition of all residual wastes from
any municipal, industrial, or other water or wastewater
treatment processing, whenever the processing or disposal
occurs within the basin. The basin plan should establish a
process to control land and/or subsurface disposal of
pollutants that cause or may cause violation of water
quality standards or where the disposal materially affects
ground water quality. Additional guidance on this subject
will be published.
T<. Ref me monitorinq programs and data. (Part 131,
Subpart D and 140 CFR 35, Subpart B, Appendix A)
Each segment should be included in the State’s moni-
toring program. A program to monitor total stream discharge
loadings and instream water quality in each Water Quality
segment in the basin must be included in the basin plan.
Initial monitoring efforts should be directed primarily
towards acquisition of data needed to allocate loads and
issue NPDES permits in Water Quality segments by December
31, 1974. Subsequent monitoring may also be directed
towards non—point source analysis and controls. The
requirement for intensive surface water monitoring surveys
(beginning with Fiscal Year 1975) should be adequate to
support the State’s continuing planning process and the
annual State program plan.
L. Relationship with other plans .
The basin plan should identify all water quality or
other applicable resource plans which involve all or any
part of the basin. These plans would include the plans
described in 81 .31.309, any major water resource planning by
the Corps of Engineers or other authorities, and any cluster
analyses undertaken in the absence of a completed segment
analysis. The basin plan should include the information
required pursuant to 8131.309.
M. ga1 basis of planjEnforcement .
The basin plan should set forth briefly the legal basis
of the plan, including the basis for enforcement of
schedules of compliance pursuant to 8131.302.
38
-------
N. Certifications.
The basin plan should include the assurances and
certifications by the Governor or his designee, required
pursuant to g131.5C1.
0.
The separate analyses of each segment in the basin plan
must be included as an appendix to the basin plan. Segment
and basin information may be presented in any manner
adequate to enable public and governmental information and
review and to serve as a guide for ongoing water quality
inana geinent.
39
-------
APPE DD( A
-------
MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volume 39 N Number 107
PART H
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
BASIN PLANS
Po’icies and Procedures
No. 107—Pt. lI—i
-------
19634
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
PART 130—POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
FOR STATE CONTINUING PLANNING
PROCESS
The purpose of this notice is to amend
40 CFR to add a new Part 130—Policies
and Procedures for State Continuing
Planning Process. On March 27, 1973,
notice was published in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER (38 FR 8034) that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) was
proposing, in the form of interim reg-
ulations, policies and procedures for the
State Continuing Planning Process pur-
suant to section 303(e) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amend-
ed: Pub. L. 92—500, 86 Stat. 816 (1972>;
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the Act).
Section 303(e) of the Act requires each
State to submit a continuing planning
process which Is consistent with the Act.
Following the publication of the interim
regulations of March 27, 1973, and prior
to the publication of these final regula-
tions, every State received EPA approval
of a State continuing planning process.
These final regulations, which describe
the necessary elements of a State’s con-
tinuing planning process, therefore pro-
vide policies and procedures for review,
revision, and approval of a State’s con-
tinuing planning process in accordance
with §1 130.52 and 130.54. In addition,
these regulations also provide a mecha-
nism for States to satisfy the Statewide
responsibilities of section 208(b) (2) (F
thru K) and sections 303(d) (Critical
waters and total maximum daily loads);
305(b) (State reports on water quality
and related information, including non-
point sources); 314(a) (Clean lakes);
516(b) (Federal/State estimate of pub-
licly owned treatment works construc-
tion needs); and they provide data for
104(a) (5 (Federal report on water
quality).
Goals. The broad goals of the continu-
ing planning process are to provide the
States with the water quality assessment
and program management information
necessary to make centralized coordi-
nated water quality management deci-
sions; to encourage water quality ob-
jectives which take into account overall
State policies and programs, including
those fOr land use and other related nat-
ural resources; and to provide the stra-
tegic guidance for developing the annual
State program submittal under section
106 of the Act.
Purpose 01 the State process. The
specific purpose of the State continuing
planning process Is to provide a mecha-
nism for development of a State’s pro-
gram submittal under section 106 of the
Act. This will be accomplished by de-
veloping an annual State strategy, which
will be based upon basin plans where
they are completed and upon other
available information where the plans
are not completed.
The annual State strategy will assist
the State:
In directing resources-planning,
monitoring, permitting, and financial as-
sistance against water quality problems
on a priority basis.
In establishing a coordinated schedule
of action.
In reporting on progress in achieving
program targets and scheduled mile-
stones.
In providing the analysis required to
revise water quality standards and to in-
sure that applicable water quality stand-
ards are attained.
In specifying the requirements for, and
scheduling the completion of, section 303
basin plans for all waters.
In determining the impact of non-
point sources of pollution on State wa-
ter quality and, where feasible, develop-
ing methods and procedures to control
such sources on a statewide basis.
In insuring public participation in the
development of the planning process and
of basin plans.
The scope and timing of a basin plan
for a specific planning area will be tail-
ored to the problems of the area. No
process should require individual basin
plans to be more detailed than is neces-
sary for sound water quality manage-
ment.
Federal properties, facilities, and ac-
tivities are subject to Federal, State, in-
terstate, and local standards and emuent
limitations for control and abatement of
pollution. The State’s planning process
should include provision for Federal
sources. It is contemplated that Federal
agencies will provide information to the
States in accordance with procedures es-
tablished by the Administrator.
Relationship of the continuing plan-
ning process and the section 106 State
program. State water quality manage-
ment is formed through the annual sec-
tion 106 State program submission. The
program, consisting of a State strategy,
output commitments, reporting, and
evaluation, is a sequenced year-round
process, as illustrated in the following
figure. The cycle begins with the sub-
mission of the annual strategy, followed
by the annual section 106 program sub-
mission. A semi-annual evaluation and
reporting of accomplishments completes
the cycle.
Basin plan contents. Companion regu-
lations under Part 131 of this chapter,
describe requirements for the prepara-
tion of basin plans pursuant to the
States’s continuing planning process:
Part 131 regulations should be consult-
ed during the review and revision of the
continuing planning process under this
Part 130.
Comments on interim Regulations. A
total of 24 written comments were re-
ceived, seven from States, four from
public and private utilities, three from
planning organizations, four from pub-
lic interest groups and the remaining
from consultants, industry and other in-
terested individuals. A number of verbal
comments also were received. In adth-
tion, a task force comprised of repre-
sentatives of eight State Water Pollu-
tion Control Agencies and three EPA
Regional Offices reviewed the final draft
and made comments and suggested lan-
guage changes, as needed. The EPA has
carefully considered all submitted com-
ments. The comments ranged from those
desiring more stringent requirements to
those who believed that these regulations
could be better handled under other sec-
tions of the Act. There was only one
comment opposed to the regulations, by
an industrial group.
The policy decisions have been re-
viewed with representative States. The
EPA revised the regulations to reflect
most of the concerns raised, by either
adopting the comment or substantially
satisfying it through editorial changes
and deletions from or additions to the
regulations.
PEDEL&L EG!STER, VOL 39, NO. O7—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19635
RULES AND REGULATIONS
• Olattonal Cbjtctive
• Satlonal Prtoritte
• Pro a’a I Reuiurce
Cut da’,ee
a. Many cominenters indicated that
the term “significant discharger’ was
not well defined In the interim regula-
tions. In addition, using only significant
dischargers to formulate State municipal
discharge inventories would not satisfy
the legal requirements of the construc-
tion grants program. The regulations
continue the use of the terni “significant
discharger”; however, its meaning has
been clarified to include those discñarg-
ers for which timely management action
must be taken in order to meet water
quality objectives for the basin within
the period of the current plan, where
the States deem It appropriate to in-
clude them. The intent is to restrict the
significant dischargers to those requir-
ing control action during the span of
the plan.
b. Several comments expressed con-
cern that adequate time to develop basin
plans was not allowed by the July 1.
1975, deadline. Although the 1975 dead-
line has been retained, the Regional Ad-
ministrator is authorized to grant an
extension.
c. Editorially, wording was modified
somewhat to reduce duplication of lan-
guage contained in Part 131 of this
Chapter.
d. The level of detail and timing of
basin plan preparation .is to be deter-
mined by a State /EPA agreement that
will be submitted as part of the annual
State strategy in the Section 106 State
program plan. Submission of the level of
detail and timing agreement for Fiscal
Year 1975 will be accomplished as a part
of the revision of the initial planning
process. (See § 130.42).
e. Other revisions are:
U Detailed explanation has been in-
cluded on the requirements for inci’eas-
ing the scope of basin plans over time.
‘See § 130.20’.
2 In order to facilitate coordination
between basin and facilities planning.
it is now required that the state iden-
tify facilities planning areas through
the continuing planning process. (See
§1130.21 and 130.51’.
(3) Some commenters indicated that
the interim regulations did not address
the antidegradation issue. The regula-
tions now require explicitly that the
planning process provide that basin
plans be consistent with water quality
standards including any antidegrada-
tion statements. ‘See I 130.22’.
4 Many comments were received re-
garding segment clasMfication. Clarify-
ing language has been included with re-
spect to segment classification:
U Editorially, the word “class’ has
been deleted from the segment classi-
fications;
‘iii Water Quality segment classifica-
tion must now include the specific water
quality parameters requiring considera-
tion.
I 5) Provisions regarding land use and
non-point sources of pollutants have
been modified with respect to scope of
basin planning and timing considei’a-
tions and section 208tb ‘21 F through
K’ of the Act. See §1130.23 and
131.202’.
6) Since land disposal of vastes may
have adverse effects on surface or ground
waters, requirements respecting control
of such disposal have been restated.
under the authority of sections 208 and
303’e, to clarify the need to consider
the consequences to each category.
tl) Requirements regarding revisions
to the process have been clarified. An-
nual reviews and, as may be necessary
annual revisions are now required as
part of the Section 106 State program
submittal each year. The 1974 revisions
will be submitted within 90 days follow-
ing the publication of these regulations
and must address whatever changes are
necessary to Insure conformity with
§ 130.11)e and if), 131.203, and 130.42.
cSee 1130.54i.
8’ Changes requested that were not
incorporated were to lengthen beyond
five years the period of basin plan cov-
erage and to allow a period greater than
30 days for public participation. The in-
tent is that the basin plans will be more
specific if limited to a five year span:
and under the regulations this is only a
minimum requirement which may be ex-
panded to cover a twenty year period
broken into five ear increments. Fur-
ther, it should be noted that priorities
and expenditures within a five year per-
iod determine controls and water quality
improvements over a much longer period.
The minimum period for public par-
ticipation was not extended beyond 30
days since it was felt that this period
normally would be sufficient for pre-
senting one’s case and that additional
time, where warranted, could be allowed
in individual cases.
State continuing planning processes
which have been submitted and approved
pursuant to the interim regulations pub-
lished March 27, 1973, remain in force
until revisions are made to the process
pursuant to § 130.54. In consideration of
the foregoing. Title 40 CFR is hereby’
amended to add a new Part 130—Policies
and Procedures for State Continuing
Planning Process.
Effective date: July 3. 1974.
Dated: May 24, 1974.
Russxts TEAIN.
Administrator.
subpart A—Scope and Purpose; Definitions
Sec.
130.1 Scope and purpose.
130.2 Definitions.
Subpart B—General Requirements
120.10 Process coverage and coordination
functions.
130.11 Classilication of basin segments.
130.12 Des lgitatioti of planning agencies.
130.13 Public patticipat lo u.
130.14 Separiuhilii.y.
Subpart C—Requirements for Basin Plans
130.20 Content and scope of basin plans.
130.21 Establishment of planning areas.
130.22 Water quality standards: antidegra-
dation.
130.23 Non-point sources of pollutants.
130.24 Monitoring and surveillance.
131) .25 Intergovernmental cooperation.
130.26 Adoption. certification, arid submit-
tal of basin plans.
Subpart D—Requirements for Annual State
Strategy
130.40 State strategy: contents.
130.41 Segment priority ranking.
tStzlVmflkt; SeILttEC? i r s PROCR I lt flfl
101 V1..,e
• Inventory of SignIf icant
b(snhar ets
lurking of Significant
Ilimicipat Dtnchur ers
Cerpltaree StheJuleo or
targ aste-test dates
total itan, bully tea ls
Contro l Tar gets sod
leqoireeento
• lioo—Polnt Sources
and Cottral.
ju3 risunon; rrrce’s
“State Str’.n,’n”
(reported it. the it;r,n
puscr4t uj5r.i:tat but
deveLoped here)
preblun omnausnout.
genr.ruphicat
diu .5ur Lr prtaeltfet
proçrnu d.eduies
needu au anut ur
- process fur .‘.cstçniug
oucputu L itt
- basis fur pru ras
report itt
03 tjasLr. piurniu
r,.uirrccnts S schedule
.AvsUab1eiuf n’utLon
__________N energofrg5rare I
activity not covered
by 303 pinKs.
Zrosiau P.fus’ittii(A.ccai.) ,
• ?:sbto tiuatCicctt.’n
-ir.tc.,.a.iti....ui ’4r
sajor uuu:ruu a.r.:nnntatiua
: u I ‘of$i’
toe Protra,u 5n.Kteu —
— t;s u ;’ i Cuclucu
— Priority tisu
,seoiu (bieuuiai)
• ldeueiiirutfou nP Sorourcog Required
go (‘stair iutpuco
—‘Adjuurnunt to Sesr’uree Constraints
brate tvoiuunturj) pofl
— t(r;iluuro •n.1 r r: rfteztt’t,Es
achiourd fervi—anruai)
— 3oduutiuns arhiavud 1
— note ’. u•’•’ ,t,., .vcrc,, a
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
1%36
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sec.
130.42 Agreement on level of detail and
timing of basin plan preparation.
130.43 State municipal discharge inventory:
priority ranking.
130.44 State industrial discharge inventory.
Subpart E.—.Submission and Approval of
Planning Process; Reports
130.50 Submission of process.
130.51 Contents of process submittal.
130.52 Review and approval or disapproval
f process.
130.53 Pr bibition of approval of- certain
planning processes: withdrawal of
process approval.
130.54 Review and revisions of process.
130.55 Reports; State program submittal.
Subpart F—Relationship of Process to Permit
Program
130.61) Relationship of continuing planning
process to State participation in
National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
mat ion System.
AuTHORITY: Sees. 106, 208(b) (2), 303(d).
303(e), 305(b), 314, 501, 516(b) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended; Pub. L. 92—500,86 Stat. 816 (1972);
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose;
Definitions
§ 130.1 Scope and purpose.
(a) This part establishes regulations
specifying procedural and other require-
ment,s for the submission and approval
of State continuing planning processes
pursuant to section 303(e) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended; Pub. L. 92—500, 86 Stat. 816
(1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
(b The broad goals of the continuing
planning process are: to provide the
States with the water quality assessment
and program management information
necessary to make centralized coordi-
nated water quality management deci-
sions: to encourage water quality objec-
tives which take into account overall
State policies and programs, including
those for land use and other related
natural resources; and to provide the
strategic guidance for developing the an-
nual State program submittal under sec-
tion 106 of the Act.
(C) The State continuing planning
process is directed toward the attain-
ment of water quality standards estab-
lished u.nder section 303 of the Act which
are designed to achieve the goals set
forth in the Act. The continuing plan-
fling process provides a mechanism for
developing an annual State strategy for
directing resources; establishing priori-
ties; scheduling actions; and reporting
progress toward the achievement of pro-
gram objectives.
(d) The “continuing planning proc-
ess” is the process by which the State
develdps:
(1) The annual State strategy, which
sets the State’s major objectives and
priorities for preventing and controlling
pollution over a one to three year period.
(2) Individual basin plans, which es-
tablish specific programs and targets for
preventing and controlling water pollu-
tion in Individual basins and establish
policies which guide decision making over
a five to ten year span of time.
(3) The annual program plan (section
106), which establishes the results ex-
pected and Identifies the resources com-
mitted for the State program each year.
(e) Thispartdescrlbes:
(1) The general requirements for the
planning process (Subpart B of this
part).
(2) The planning process require-
ments for the preparation of basin plans
(Subpart C of this part).
(3) The preparation of the annual
State strategy (Subpart D of this part).
(4) The requirements for submission
and approval of the planning process
(Subpart B of this part).
(5) The relationship of the process to
the permit program (Subpart F of this
part).
§ 130.2 Definitions.
As used in this part, the following
terms shall have the meanings set forth
below.
(a) The term “Act” means the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended; Pub. L. 92—500, 86 Stat. 816
(1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
(b) The term “EPA” means the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(C) The term “Administrator” means
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
(dl The term “Regional Athninistra-
tor” means the appropriate EPA Re-
gional Administrator.
(el The terms “continuing planning
process,” “planning process,” and “proc-
ess” mean the continuing planning proc-
ess required by section 303(e) of the Act
including any revision thereto.
(f) The term “basin plan” means the
water quality management plan for each
hydrologic basin or other approved basin
unit within a State. Such plans form a
basis for implementing applicable effluent
limitations and water quality standards,
and consist of such elements as are nec-
essary for sound planning and program
management in the basin covered by the
plan. Requirements for the preparation
of basin plans are described in Part 131
of this chapter.
(g) The term “effluent limitation”
means any restriction established by a
$tate or the Administrator on quantities.
rates, and concentrations of chemical,
physical, biological, and other constitu-
ents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters
of the contiguous zone, or the ocean,
but does not include schedules of com-
pliance.
(h) The term “schedule of compli-
ance” means remedial measures to be
accomplished and a sequence of actions
or operations leading to compliance with
applicable effluent limitations, water
quality standards and other require-
ments of State and Federal law. Sched-
tile of compliance includes those se-
quenced actions or operations contained
In a National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System permit which are legally
binding on the discharger; whereas, the
term “target abatement dates” means
a sequence of actions or control mess-
ures which have not been formally
adopted through the permit process and
therefore are not legally binding on the
discharger until they are adopted in a
permit.
(i) The term “municipal needs”
means the total capital funding required
for construction of publicly owned treat-
ment works, as defined in section 212
(2) (A) and (B) of the Act, required to
meet national water quality objectives
of sections 301 and 302 of the Act.
(j) The term “National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System” means
the national permitting system author-
ized under section 402 of the Act, includ-
ing any State or interstate permit pro-
gram which has been approved by the
Administrator pursuant to section 402
of the Act.
(k) The term “phasing of planning”
means the State schedule approved by
the Regional Administrator for the
preparation of basin plans.
(1) The term “basin” means the
streams, rivers, tributaries, and lakes
and the total land and surface water
area contained within one of the major
or minor basins defined by EPA, or any
other basin unit as agreed upon by the
State(s) and the Regional Administra-
tor. Unless otherwise specified, “basin”
shall refer only to those portions within
the borders of a single State.
(m) The term “segment” means a
portion of a basin, the surface waters
of which have common hydrologic char-
acteristics (or flow regulation pat-
terns); common natural physical, chem-
ical, and biological processes; and com-
mon reactions to external stresses, such
as the discharge of pollutants. (See
§ 130.11(d)).
(n) The term “significant discharge”
means any point source discharge for
which timely management action must
be taken in order to meet the water
quality objectives for the basin within
the period of the operative basin plan.
The significant nature of the discharge
Is to be determined by the State, but
must include, at a minimum, any dis-
charge which is causing or will cause
serious or critical water quality problems
relative to the segment to which it dis-
charges.
(0) The definitions of the terms con-
tained in section 502 of the Act shall be
applicable to such terms as used in this
part unless the context otherwise
requires.
Subpart B—General Requirements
§ 130.110 Process coverage and coordina-
tion function.
(a) The process shall provide for the
preparation of basin plans for all waters
within the State, as provided in Subpart
C of this part.
(b) The process shall establish phas-
ing of plans to be accomplished, as pro-
vided in Subpart D of this part.
(C) The process shall provide the
method by which the State shall co-
ordinate all water quality planning, pro-
gramining and management.
FEDEftAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
19637
(d) The’ process shall provide the
method by which the State shall coordi-
nate its water quality management
planning with related State and local
cesnprehenslve, functional, and project
planning activities, Including land use
and other natural resources planning
activities.
(e) The process shall provide the
method by which the State shall coordi-
nate its water quality management plan-
ning with that of its neighboring States.
§130.11 lassificaIion of basin seg-
nients.
(a) The requirements of this part and
Part 131 of this chapter vary according
to the classification of each particular
basin segment, such that the time and
resources to be extended In developing
the basin plan for a particular segment,
as well as the substantive content of the
basin plan, will be commensurate with
the severity of the water pollution prob-
lem, as described In Subpart B of Part
131 of this chapter.
(b) The classification of segments also
shall be used In establishing State prior-
ities in accordance with Subpart D of
this part.
(C) The classification of segments shall
be based upon measured instream water
quality, where available.
(d) Each basin segment shall be classi-
fied as follows:
(1) Water quality. Any segment where
it Is known that water quality does not
meet applicable water quality standards
and/or Is not expected to meet applicable
water quality standards even after the
application of the effluent limitations re-
quired by sections 301(b)(1)(A) and
301(b) (1) (B) of the Act.
(2) flluent limitations. Any segment
where it Is known that water quality Is
meeting and will continue to meet ap-
plicable water quality standards or where
there is adequate demonstration that
water quality will meet applicable water
quality standards after the application of
the effluent limitations required by see-
tkms 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B)
of theAct.
(e) Each Water Quality segment clas-
sification shall include the specific water
quality parameters requiring consider-
ation In the total maximum daily load
allocation process, as provided in
* 13 1.304 of this chapter.
(f) Each segment classification shall
reflect any necessary allowance for an-
ticipated economic and demographic
growth over at least a five year period
and an additional allowance reflecting
the degree of precision and validity of
the analysis upon which the classifica-
tion Is based. Where the analysis Is less
precise, or there is uncertainty concern-
ing growth projections, a greater margin
of safety shall be required for the assign-
ment of any segment as an Effluent
Limitation segment. In determining the
additional allowance, consideration
should be given to economic and demo-
graphic projections that are utilized In
other State environmental and natural
resource programs.
(a) (1) The Governor of a State shall
designate a State agency responsible to
conduct the required planning under
this part and Part 131 of this chapter.
The Governor may designate a local or
Interstate agency to conduct all or any
portion of the planning within each
basin and may assign planning responsi-
bilities under the process and Part 131 of
this chapter to any such designated
agency.
(2) Locally elected officials of general
purpose units of government, and other
pertinent local and areawide organiza-
tions within the jurisdiction of a pro-
posed designated agency, shall be con-
sulted prior to any final designation.
(b) (1) Each designation shall include:
U) The agency’s name, address, and
name of the director.
(iD The agency’s jurisdiction (geo-
graphical coverage and extent of plan-
ning responsibilities).
(2) In the event that all or a portion
of a basin plan Is to be undertaken by
an agency other than the State water
pollution control agency, evidence from
such other agency shall be supplied
which shows acceptance of such desig-
nation and the agency’s intent to comply
within the time schedules set forth In the
planning process.
(3) The State may make additional
assignments, as set forth In this section,
from time to time. Such designations
shall be accomplished by revising the
planning process as provided in § 130.54.
§ 130.13 Public participation.
Each process, and any revision thereof,
shall provide for public participation in
accordance with section 101 (e) of the
Act and regulations Issued by the Ad-
ministrator thereunder. Public partici-
pation, with adequate opportunity for
public hearing upon proper showing,
shall be required on significant elements
of the planning process, including the
proposed State strategy and priority
lists developed under the continuing
planning process pursuant to section 106
regulations.
§ 130.14 Separability.
If any provision of this part, or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person or circumstance, Is held
invalid, the application of such provision
to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this part, shall not be
affected thereby.
Subpart C—Requirements for Basin Plans
§ 130.20 Content and scope of basin
plans.
(a) The process shall provide that
basin plan analysis, preparation, docu-
mentation, and coordination for seg-
ments shall be developed as prescribed
in Part 131, Subparts B and C, of this
chapter.
(b) The process shall provide that
basin planning will increase in scope as
prescribed In 131.202 of this chapter.
The process shall provide for the
establishment of basin planning areas as
specified In § 131.203 of this chapter.
§ 130.22 Water quality standards; anti-
degradation.
(a) The process shall provide that each
basin plan shall set forth and be consist-
ent with applicable water quality stand-
ards, including any antidegradation
statement,
(b) The process, including the basin
plans developed as part of the process,
shall be used by the States to assist In
making any necessary revisions of water
quality standards.
§ 130.23 Nonpoint sources of pollutants.
The process shall provide that, where
the Governor so determines, the require-
ments of section 208(b) (2) (F through
K) may be applied on a statewide basis,
as prescribed in regulations prepared for
designation of aieawide waste treatment
management planning areas. (I 126.20 of
this chapter.)
§ 130.24 Monitoring and surveillance.
The process shall provide for a moni-
toring and surveillance program which
is designed to assure collection of data
necessary to establish and review water
quality standards, determine total maxi-
mum daily loads, load allocations at d
effluent limitations, and assess, where
required, the contamination of land and
groundwater systems caused by disposal
of residual wastes ur other pollutants on
land or in subsurface excavation, as de-
scribed in Part 131, Subpart D, of this
chapter; and to establish the relation-
ship between water quality and individ-
ual discharges and identify nonpoint
sources of pollutants. (See also Subpart
B of Part 35 of this chapter.)
§ 130.25 Intergovernmental coopers.
lion.
(a) The process shall provide that in
the preparation of basin plans, adequate
areawide and local planning Inputs will
be included in the basin plan as appro-
priate. (See I 131.309 of this chapter.)
(b) The process shall provide that local
governments within the State will be
encouraged to utilize existing, or develop
appropriate Institutional or other ar-
rangements with other local govern-
ments In the same State, for cooperation
in the development and implementation
of basin plans.
(c) The process shall provide for in-
terstate cooperation whenever a basin
plan Involves the Interests of more than
one State. Such provision shall Include
the following assurances:
(1) That when a basin plan is under
development in the State for an area af-
fecting or affected by waters of one or
more other States, the planning agency
will cooperate with each such other State
In the analyses and planning pertinent
to such area, including but not limited
to problem assessment and priorities and
schedules for basin plan preparation
(See §1 130.41 and 130.42.)
§ 130.12 Designation of planning ageD- § 130.21 Establishment of planning
cies. areas.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19638
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(2) That when a basin plan is under
development in another State for an
area affecting or affected by waters of
the State, the State will cooperate with
such other State in the analyses and
planning pertinent to such area.
(d) The use of interstate agencies In
all phases of interstate cooperation In
water quality management planning is
encouraged.
(e) The process shall describe the
mechanism for State approval of water
quality management basin plans involv-
ing interstate waters.
§ 130.26 Adoption, certification and
submittal of basin plans.
The process shall provide that after
appropriate public hearings the basin
plans will be adopted, certffied, and sub-
mitted to the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator, as specified in Part 131,
Subpart E. of this chapter.
Subpart D—Requirements for Annual
State Strategy
§ 130.40 State strategy; contents.
a) The planning process shall pro-
vide for the preparation of an annual
State strategy. The annual State st at-
egy shall be submitted as part of the
section 106 State program submittal, as
required pursuant to § 130.55. The
Governor or his designee(s) shall be pro-
vided an opportunity to be involved In
the identification and resolution of
significant issues in the formulation of
the State strategy.
b) The State strategy shall contain:
(1) A statewide assessment of water
quality problems and the causes of these
problems.
(2) A listing of the geographical
priorities of these problems.
(3) A description of the State’s ap-
proach to solving its water quality prob-
lerns identified in subparagraph (1) of
this paragraph, including a discussion of
the extent to which non-point sources of
pollution will.be addressed by the State
program.
(4) A listing of the priorities and
scheduling of permits, construction
grants, basin plans, areawide plans and
other appropriate program actions to
carry out subparagraph (3) of this
paragraph.
(5) A description of the level of detail
and the schedule for preparation of
basin plans proposed for each basin or
portion thereof.
t6) A description of the manner In
which the information, analyses, esti-
mates, or recommendations required to
satisfy the provisions of section 305(b)
of the Act will be obtained together with
all such information, analyses, estimates
or recommendations as may be available
at the time of submission of the State
strategy unless the State chooses to sub-
mit the 305(b) report separately from
the State strategy.
(c) The State strategy should be
based upon other information derived
from completed basin plans, when avail-
able, and from other available informa-
tion In areas where basin plans are not
completed.
§ 130.41 Segment priority ranking.
(a) Based on the annual statewide
assessment of the water quality prob-
lems and causes of these problems de-
veloped pursuant to I 130.40(a) (1), the
State shall rank each segment In priority
order, taking into account:
(1) Severity of pollution problems.
(2) Population affected.
(3) Need for preservation of high
quality waters.
(4) National priorities as determined
by the Administrator.
(5) Additional factors identified by
the State in its priority system.
(b) Segments of the same basin need
not be listed together; however, their
ranking in the State list shall be con-
sistent with their ranking In any ap-
proved basin plan.
(C) The State segment priority rank-
ing generaily shall govern the develop-
ment of basin plans, construction of
publicly owned treatment works, Issu-
ance of permits, and other program as-
tivities.
§ 130.42 Agreement on level of detail
and timing of basin plan prepara-
tion.
(a) The level of detail and timing of
basin plan preparation proposed for each
basin, or portion thereof, shall be de-
termined by agreement between the
State and the appropriate Regional Ad-
ministrator. All basin plans must be sub-
mitted by July 1, 1975; however, the
appropriate Regional Administrator may
extend the time for submission by agree-
ment with the State. The State will pro-
vide a proposed schedule for basin plan
preparation and proposed level of detail
of basin planning as part of the annual
State strategy. Approval of the section
106 State program, including the annual
State strategy, will serve as approval of
the schedule and level of detail of basin
planning.
(b) The schedule shall provide a se-
quence for phasing of planning to assure
the orderly implementation of the plan-
ning process, consistent with existing
planning efforts and needs and the ex-
panding capabilities for planning In the
State. Such schedule shall determine the
State’s priorities for the development of
basin plans pursuant to the process dur-
ing the period covered by the schedule.
(C) The schedule of basin plans shall
be determined following consideration
of:
(1) The ranking of segments pursu-
ant to § 130.41 and the number of Water
Quality segments In the basin; and
(2) Any other factors the State may
deem appropriate in developing and
scheduling plans for sound water qual-
ity management.
(d) Where agreement on level of de-
tail and timing of basin planning has
not previously been specified for Fiscal
Year 1975, the State shall submit the
proposed level of detail and timing of
basin planning together with planning
process revisions as specified In § 130.54.
§ 130.43 State municipal discharge in-
ventory; priority ranking.
(a) Each State shall establish and
maintain a State Municipal Discharge
Inventory. The Inventory shall set forth
a Statewide ranking of significant mu-
nicipal dischargers. The Inventory shall
be used in establishing priorities and
output estimates for municipal facilities
construction and in other program ac-
tions to be developed as part of the State
program submittal required under sec-
tion 106 of the Act. The inventory shall
become the list of municipalities re-
quired in § 35.915(b) of this chapter far
award of construction grants.
(b) The State Municipal Discharge In-
ventory shall be revised and submitted
at least once each year, as required
pursuant to * 130.55.
(C) The State shall rank significant
municipal dischargers consistent with
the segment priority rankings contained
In § 130.41.
§ 130.44 State industrial discharge in-
ventory.
Each State shall establish and main-
tain a State Industrial Discharge Inven-
tory. The Inventory should reflect the
relative importance of significant dis-
chargers and shall be used for guidance
In establishing the annual State strategy.
Problem Identification and segment
ranking should be used In developing the
State Industrial Discharge Inventory.
Subpart E—Submission a d Approval of
Planning Process; Reports
§ 130.50 Salfmission of process.
(a) The Oovernor of each State shall
submit to the Regional Administrator the
continuing planning process.
(b) Submission shall be accomplished
by delivering to the Regional Adminis-
trator five copies of the planning process
and a letter from the Governor notifying
him of such action.
§ 130.51 Contents of process submittal.
(a) The submittal shall contain, at a
minimum, the following:
(1) A map of the State showing basins
and segments and a map showing recom-
mended areas delineated for facifities
planning.
(2) A listing of the classifications of
segments.
(3) A description of the planning
method employed to fonnulate basin
plans.
(4) A listing of the planning agency
or agencies that will perform the plan-
ning under this part and Part 131 of this
chapter.
(5) A description of public participa-
tion In the development of the process,
Including participation of local govern-
ments.
(6) A statement that legal authorities
required to prepare and adopt basin
plans as required by the planning proc-
ess exist or will be obtained.
(7) A description of reports, Includ-
ing the State strategy, that will be sub-
initted under section 106 of the Act
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 107—MONDAY. JUNE 3, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
196 . 9
§ 130.52 Re kw and appro .al or d 5 .
approsal of pro eess.
The Regional Administrator shall ap-
prove or disapprove the planning process
submitted pursuant to § 130.50 within 30
days after the date of submission, as
follows:
a) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the planning process
conforms with the requirements of the
Act and this Part 130, he shall so notify
the Governor by letter.
(b) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the process fails to con-
form with the requirements of the Act
and this Part 130. he shall so notify the
Governor by letter and shall state:
U) The specific revisions necessary to
obtain approval of the process.
(2) The time period for resubmission
of the revised process or portions thereof.
§ 130.53 I’roliibiiion of approval of c cc-
lain planhling processes; withdrawal
of process approval.
The Regional Administrator shall not
approve any continuing planning process
which will not result in timely basin
plans for all navigable waters within the
State that conform with the applicable
requirements of sections 303(e). 314(a),
208(b) (2) (F—K), and 303(d) of the Act
and Part 131 of this chapter, relating to
such basin plans. Substantial failure of
any basin plan or plans prepared pursu-
ant to the process to conform with such
applicable requirements may Indicate
that the planning process by which such
basin plan or plans were developed was
deficient and should be revised. Failure
to accomplish necessary revisions of the
planning process may result in with-
drawal of approval of part or all of the
process.
§ 130.54 Review and rev isiohl’ of proc.
ess.
(a) The State shall review annually its
continuing planning process and shall
revise the process as may be necessary
to assure the development and mainte-
nance of a State strategy and current
basin plans which will accomplish na-
tional water quality objectives in con-
formity with the requirements of the Act.
(b) The State shall submit annual
planning process revisions to the Re-
gional Administrator as part of the State
Program Plan submittal under section
106 of the Act.
(C) In addition to any other necessary
revisions identified by the State or the
Regional Administrator, the State shall
submit, within 90 days after publication
of these regulations, whatever revisions
to Its planning process are necessary to
Insure conformity with H 130.11(e) and
130.11(f) and § 131.203 of this chapter.
(d) Revisions of the process shall be
submitted in accordance with § 130.50.
(e) Review and approval or disap-
proval of revisions of the process shall be
carried out In accordance with § 130.52.
§ 130.55 Reports; State program sub.
inittal.
The annual State strategy Including
the State problem assessment and priori-
ties described in § 130.41, the State /EPA
agreement on level of detail and timing
of basin plan preparation as described in
§ 130.42, the State Municipal Discharge
Inventory described in § 130.43, and the
State Industrial Discharge Inventory de-
scribed in § 130.44, as well as any other
program progress report(s) which may
be required, shall be submitted as part
of the State program submittal under
section 106 of the Act.
Subpart F—Relationship of Process To
Permit Program
§ 130.60 Relationship of continuing
planning process to Stale participa.
lion in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System.
(a) State participation in the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,
other than the interim participation pro-
vided in section 402(a (5) of the Act,
shall not be approved for any State which
does not have an approved continuing
planning process.
(b) Approval of State participation in
the National Pollutant Discharge Elim-
ination System may be withdrawn from
any State if approval of the continuing
planning process is withdrawn for any
reason, including withdrawal of process
approval based on gross failure to comply
with the schedule for basin plan prepara-
tion (I 130.42) or on failure of basin plans
to conform with the planning process re-
quirements (I 130.52).
[ FR Doc.74—12559 Filed 5—31—74;8:45 anil
PART 131—PREPARATION OF WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASIN PLANS
The purpose of this part is to amend
40 FR to add a new Part 131—Prepara-
tion of Water Quality Management Basin
Plans. On May 23, 1973, notice was pub-
lished in the FEDERAL REGISTER (38 FR
1356’?) that the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency was proposing policies and
procedures designed to assist States in
the preparation of water quality man-
agement basin plans pursuant to section
303(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended; Pub. L. 92—500,
86 Stat. 816 (1972); (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) thereinafter referred to as the Act).
Section 303(e) of the Act requires each
State to have a continuing planning
process which is consistent with the Act.
Basin plans under this part will be pre-
pared in accordance with the State’s
continuing planning process submitted
arid approved pursuant to Part 130 of
this chapter.
The regulations describe the require-
ments for preparation of basin plans and
the procedures governing basin plan
adoption, submission, revision, and EPA
approval. The relationship of basin plans
with EPA grants and the national permit
system also is described. Provision is in-
cluded for coordinatiOn between basin
plans and any discharge permit for a
source located in a planning area.
The regulations are designed to assure
that basin plans prepared pursuant to
this part will be appropriate for water
quality management both in areas hay-
lug complex water quality problems and
in less complicated situations.
Written comments on the proposed
regulations were invited and received
from interested parties. A number of
verbal comments also were received. The
Environmental Protection Agency has
carefully considered all submitted com-
ments. AU written comments are on file
with the Agency. Certain of these com-
ments have been adopted or substan-
tially satisfied by editorial changes and
deletions from or additions to the regu-
lations. These and other principal
changes are discussed below and in the
preamble to Part 130 of this chapter.
(a) Since § 150.1—2 of this chapter
will be superseded by Part 35, Subpart E
of this chapter, the requirement that ba-
sin plans be coordinated with § 150.1—2
plans, has been deleted. Also, the require-
ment that basin plans be coordinated
with water quality standards implemen-
tation plans has been deleted.
(b) Each basin plan must now be
based on “best available” monitoring and
surveillance data. (See § 131.400).
(c) Requirements regarding revisions
to basin plans have been clarified. Each
basin plan must be revised within five
years of the last approval date; specific
considerations in the revision process are
also listed. (See § 131.505).
Section 131.507 clarifies § 35.925—2 to
indicate that disapproval by the Regional
Administrator of a basin plan, or rele-
vant portion thereof, for the area where
a project is to be located may constitute
grounds for not approving a grant for
such project. This revision will be in-
cluded in an amendment to 40 CFR Part
35, Subpart E, § 35.925—2.
Those basin plans prepared under
State continuing planning processes
which have been submitted and approved
pursuant to the interim regulations pub-
lished May 23, 1973, remain in force until
revisions are made to the basin plans
pursuant to § 13 1.505 of this part. In
consideration of the foregoing, Title 40
CFR is hereby amended to add a new
Part 131—Preparation of Water Quality
Management Basin Plans.
Effective date: July 3, 1974.
Dated: May 24, 1974.
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose: Detmitions
Sec.
131.100 Scope and purpose.
131.101 Definitions.
Subpart B—Preparation for Basin Planning
131.200 General.
131.201 Basin plan elements.
131.202 Scope and timing of basin plan sub-
mission.
131.203 Boundaries of planning area.
Subpart C—Basin Plan Methodology and
Contents
131.300 General.
131.301 Inventory of sources; analysis ot
significant discharges; segment
priority ranking.
121.302 Schedulea of compliance; coorthna—
tion with permits.
131303 Assessment ot municipal needs.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19640
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Sec.
131.304 Determination of total maximum
daily loads.
131.305 Individual point source load allo-.
cations; impact on water quality.
131.306 Individual non-point source assess-
ment; impact on water quality.
131.307 Establishment of residual wastes
control process.
131.308 Revisions to water quality stand-
ards.
131.309 Identification of relationship to
other plans.
131.310 Coordination of certain planning
elements and terms of permits.
Subpart D—Monitoring and Surveillance
131.400 Relationship of monitoring and sur-
veillance program to basin plans.
131.401 coverage of monitoring and surveil-
lance program.
13 1.402 Use of monitoring surveys for basin
plan development.
13 1.403 Frequency of monitoring surveys.
131.404 Output of monitoring surveys.
131.405 Water quality data from fixed sta-
tions; Input to EPA information
system.
Subpart E..—.Comp!etion and Review of Basin
Plans: Relation to Permits and Gra his
131.500 Basin plan adoption.
131.501 CertificatIons.
131.502 PublIc participation.
131.503 Submission of basin plans.
131.504 Review and approval or disapproval
of basin plans.
131.505 Revision of basin plans.
131506 Prohibition of approval of certain
basin plans: withdrawal of proc-
ess approval.
131.507 Prohibition of certain construction
grants.
131.508 Discharge permit terms and con-
ditions.
131.509 Separability.
An-rHoRrrv: Sec. 303(e) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended;
Pub. L. 92—500. 86 Stat. 816 1972); t33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.i (hereinafter referred to as the
Act).
Subpart A—Scope and Purpose:
Definitions
§ 131.100 Scope and purpose.
(a) This part establises regulations
specifying procedural and other require-
ments for the preparation of basin plans
pursuant to a State continuing planning
process approved in accordance with sec.
tion 303(e) of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, as amended; Pub. L.
92—500, 86 Stat. 816 1972 (; (33 U.s.c.
1251 et seq.), and Part 130 of this
chapter.
h’ A basin plan is a management
document which identifies the water
quality problems of a particular basin
and sets forth an effective remedial pro-
gram to alleviate those problems. The
basin plan is neither a broad water and
related land resources plan nor a basin.-
wide facilities plan. The value of a basin
plan lies in its utility in making water
quality management decisions on a
basinwide scale. To achieve this objective,
the detail of the basin plan should be
designed to provide the necessary analy-
sis for basin management decisions.
Moreover, there must be a flexible revi-
sion mechanism to reflect changing con-
ditions in the basin. A basin plan should
be a dynamic management tool, rather
than a rigid, static compilation of data
and material.
(c’ A basin plan will provide for
orderly water quality management by:
(1) Identifying problems. Assessing
existing water quality, applicable water
quality standards, point sources of pol-
lution, and, if appropriate, non-point
sources of pollution.
(2) Assessing needs and priorities.
Assessing water quality and abatement
needs so as to Identify any deficiencies
in the Statewide priorities developed in
accordance with § 130.41 through 130.44
of this chapter.
(3) Scheduling actions. Setting forth
compliance schedules where permits
have been issued or target abatement
dates where permits have not been Issued
and indicating necessary State and local
activities.
(4) Coordinating planning. Identify-
ing needs and priorities for section 201
facility plans and section 208 areawlde
plans within the basin and reflecting the
results of those activities.
§ 131.101 Definitions.
The definitions set forth in § 130.2 of
this chapter shall apply to this part..
Subpart B—Preparation for Basin
Planning
§ 131.200 General.
(at Each basin plan under this part
shall be prepared pursuant to the State
planning process submitted and approved
in accordance with Part 130 of this
chapter.
§ 131.20 1 Basin plan elements.
(a) Basin planning elements vary
with the water quality problems and the
water quality decisions to be made in a
particular basin. Generally, basin plan-
ning elements are consonant with t.he
segment classifications indicated in t.he
following table.
(b) The waters within the planning
basin shall be classified as Water Quality
segments and or Effluent Limitation seg-
ments as described in Part 130. Subpart B
of this chapter.
Ic) The segment analyses as otit.lined
in this Part 131. shall be used to re-
classify, as appropriate, the current
State classification of segments pursuant
to 130.11 of this chapter.
(dl The level of detail and the sched-
ule of basin plan preparation will de-
pend on the water quality problems and
the water quality decisions to be made
and shall be determined by the State/
EPA agreement in accordance with
§ 130.42 of this chapter.
Water
quality
segments
Effluent
lirnitatioa
segments
L Inventory and ranking of
sigidheant disc.hargers
(1131,301) -
X
X
2. Schedule of compliance or
target dates i( 131.302)
X
X
3. As.sessrnent of municipal
needs i 131.303) -
X
X
4. Deterrni nation of total inns.—
irlium cia) I v loads ((131.-
304) -
X
.5. Established ortargeted load
alloe tion nd emuecit
limitations ((131.300)
X
6.Assessnsei it of flOn. Xii II I
sources of pollution .i 131.—
306)
x
7. Residual waste controls
(1131.307)
)(
X
8. Itecominended waler qual-
ity standards revisions
(I 131.306) -a
X
X
9. Plani iiig relationships
(1131.3(00 -a
X
X
10. Appropriate monitoring
and survc ’itlaric’e programs
(Part 131 SubinD) ..
11. Interstatelntergoveritnien-
tat cooperation (( 130.25)__
X
X
X
X
of basin
131.2O2 Scope and liming
plan submissions.
(a) All basin plans must be submitted
by July 1. 1975, unless an extension of
time has been granted by the Regional
Administrator pursuant to § 130.42 of
this chapter, and shall concentrate on:
(1) Point source management provi-
sions, including data assembly and sig-
nificant discharge inventories;
(2) Waste load analysis in Water
Quality segments, based on existing or
readily obtainable data;
3) Schedules of compliance or target
abatement dates;
(4) Assessment of munIcipal needs for
Federal construction grant assistance;
and
(5) A recognition of non-point sources,
to the extent feasible, to establish dis-
charge load allocations for point source
discharges.
(bi Revisions to basin plans after July
1. 1975. shall reconsider, where substan-
tive changes have occurred. current as-
tions with respect to the most recent
data or analysis and shall concentrate, if
appropriate, on the identification and
evaluation of methods and procedures
(including land use requirements) to
control, to the extent feasible, non-point
sources of pollution.
§ 131.203 Bouiulariee of plansdng ales.
(at Each basin planning area shall be
the area within the basin boundary.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph
(c of this section, the basin boundaries
shall be those identified as minor basins
in the EPA water quality information
system.
c The State planning process may
provide for the establishment of planning
boundaries differing from those Identi-
FEDERAL RECISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
19641
fled in the EPA basin system. Any such
differing boundaries shall be submitted
to the Regional Administrator for ap-
proval.
(d) Each basin plan shall contain a
delineation of the boundaries of the
basin on a map of appropriate scale.
Such map or maps shall include, but are
not limited to:
(1) An identification of the location of
each significant discharger by river mile
and/or shore location for bays, lakes and
estuaries.
(2) An identification of the location of
all monitoring stations (Federal-State-
Local) by river mile and/or grid location.
NOTE: Such a map may omit discharger
and monitoring station locations if such
locations are available in the EPA water
quality information system and if the basin
plan includes the listing described in
§ 131.301(b) and a list of monitoring sta-
tions and their locations.
Subpart C—Basin Plan Methodology and
Contents
§ 131.300 General.
This subpart describes the method-
ology to be used in formulating the ap-
propriate elements of basin plans as
specified in Subpart B of this part.
§ 131.301 In entory of source . anal-
sis of significant discharges segment
priority ranking.
(a) Each basin plan shall include an
inventory of municipal and industrial
sources and a ranking of municipal
sources which shall be used by the State
in the development of the State strategy,
described in Part 130, Subpart D of this
chapter.
(b) Each basin plan shall include an•
analysis of each significant discharger of
pollutants, set forth the location of each
source, and describe, by parameter, its
waste discharge characteristics. The
analysis should include data from the
National Pollutant Discharge Eliniina-
tion System. A summary of the informa-
tion should be included in the basin plan.
(c ) Each basin plan shall include a
ranking of the basin segments in order
of abatement priority for the purpose
of identifying deficiencies in the State-
wide priorities developed in ) 130.41
through 130.44 of this chapter.
§ 131.302 Schedules of compliance : co-
ordination .iih permits.
(a Each basin plan shall include
schedules of compliance or target dates
of abatement for significant dischargers
identified in § 131.301.
(b) (11 Each schedule of compliance
or target date of abatement shall include
milestone dates, as follow’s:
U) The major interim and final com-
pletion dates included as terms or con-
ditions of a permit, if any, that are neces-
sary to assure an adequate tracking of
progress towards compliance.
(iil Where the source is required to
obtain a permit under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
but no permit has been issued as of the
date that the plan is submitted. a target
date when the source must obtain a per-
mit, as well as other target abatement
dates that will enable an adequate track-
ing of progress towards completion of
the facility.
(2 A basin plan may, at the option
of the State, describe the legal basis for
enforcement of schedules of compliance
(e.g., adopted as State law; promulgated
as State regulations; incorporated or to
be incorporated in waste discharge
permits) -
§ 131.303 A es ’ mnent of municipal
nced .
(a Each basin plan shall include an
assessment of municipal needs that have
been identified, using the following
criteria
1) Load reduction to be achieved by
each facility, and why this reduction is
required to attain and maintain appli-
cable water quality standards and ef-
fluent limitations.
2 Population or population equiva-
lents to be served, including forecast
growth or decline of such population
over a 20 yeas’ period following the sched-
uled date for installation of the needed
facility, These analyses shall take into
account projections used in other State
and local planning acti\ities.
3 Types of facilities needed and
their investment costs derived from ap-
proved section 201 facilities plans, sec-
tion 208 areawide waste treatment
management plans, or facilities designs
and specifications, if available.
4 In the absence of t.he above plans
and designs, an indication of facilities
required to be considered as an option
under future section 201 facilities or
section 208 areawide planning and pre-
liminary estimates of their costs.
(b Cost estimates for facilities meet-
ing the above criteria shall be based on
engineering plans, specifications, and
detailed cost estimates, where available.
For any facility for which detailed esti-
mates do not exist, cost estimates shall
be made based on available guidelines
prepared by the Administrator.
§ 31.3O4 Determination of total max-
i inn in (I a ilv 105( 1
Each basin plan shall include for
each Water Quality segment the total
maximum daily loads of pollutants, in-
eluding thermal loads, allowable for each
specific. criterion being violated or ex-
pected to be violated. Such loads shall be
at a level at least as stringent as neces-
saiy to implement the applicable water
quality standards, including:
Provision for seasonal variation;
and
2’ Provision of a margin of safety
which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship
between effluent limitations and water
quality and an additional margin of
safety which takes into account any un-
certainty resulting from insufficiency of
data, including data from non-point
sources of pollutants.
I b ‘ 1’ Each basin plan shall estimate
for each Water Quality segment where
thermal standards may be violated, the
total daily thermal load allowable in
such segment. Such load shall be at a
level at least as stringent as necessary
to assure the protection and propagation
of a balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Such loads
shall take into account:
U) Normal water temperatures.
(ii) Flow rates.
(iii) Seasondl variations.
(iv ) Existing sources of heat input.
ly) The dissipative capacity of the
identified segment.
(2) Each stirI late shall include an
estimate of the maximum heat input
that can be made into each Water
Quality segment where temperature is
one of the criteria being violated and
shall include a margin of safety which
takes into account lack of knowledge
concerning the development of thermal
water quality criteria for protection and
propagation of indigenous biota in the
identified segment.
(C) Where predictive mathematical
models are used in the determination of
total maximum daily loads, each model
shall be identified and briefly described,
and the specific use of the model shall be
cited.
§ 131.303 Individual point source load
allocations: impact on water quality.
Each basin plan shall establish dis-
charge load and thermal load allocations
or target allocations for point and non-
point sources in each Water Quality seg-
ment as follows:
(a) The basin plan shall establish a
discharge load allocation or target load
allocation in each Water Quality seg-
ment for the purpose of establishing
effluent limitations for significant dis-
chargers and, to the degree feasible, for
other sources including non-point
sources identified pursuant to § 131.306
and shall, where appropriate, establish a
load allocation for each thermal source.
The total of such discharge load alloca-
tions or effluent limitations for all sources
in the segment shall not exceed the total
maximum daily load 01’ thermal load al-
location established or estimated foi’ such
segment pursuant to 131.304.
lb Each dischai’ge load allocation
and thermal losd allocation established
or estimated pursuant to this paragraph
shall incorporate an allowance for
anticipated economic and demosl’aphic
growth over at least a five-year period
and an additional allowance reflecting
the precision and validity of the method
used in determining such allowance.
Ic) Establishment of discharge load
allocations and thermal load allocations
shall be coordinated with the develon-
ment of terms and conditions of permits
under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System in the manner pie—
scribed in 131.310.
§ 131.306 Individual non-point ouree
a e s—n iemIt impact on water qmlalils.
(a) Each basin plan shall provide for
the consideration, if appropriate, of agri-
cultural, silvicultural, mining related,
construction activity related, salt water
intrusion related and other non-point
discharges in accordance with § 13 1.202.
No. 107—Pt. 11—2
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19642
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) Each basin plan shall identify and
evaluate water quality problems in Water
Quality segments caused by non-point
source discharges including, at a mini-
rnwn, a description of the type of prob-
lem. an identification of the waters
affected, including an evaluation of the
effects, and an identification of non-
point sources contributing to the prob-
lem.
(ci Each basin plan shall identify and
evaluate alternative procedures and
methods Uncluding land use require-
ments) to control, to the extent feasible,
non-point sources contributing to water
quality problems in Water Quality seg-
ments, The evaluation should consider
the technical, legal, institutional, eco-
nomic and environmental impact and
feasibility of such procedures and meth-
ods. The most feasible alternative should
be described in the basin plan. Data ob-
tained from the basin plan monitoring
program established pursuant to Subpart
D of this part shall be employed in mak-
ing the identj&at$ons and analyses re-
quired by this section.
§ 131.307 E,ial,1i liiiient of re dnat
astes roll trot pr wt - .
Each basin plan shall identify neces-
sary conti’ols to be established over the
disposition of residual wastes from mu-
nicipal. industrial, or other water or
waste water treatment processing, when-
ever the processing or disposal occurs
within the basin, and shall establish a
process to control the disposal of pollut-
ants on land or itt subsurface excava-
tions within the basin wherever such
disposal causes or may cause iolation of
water quality standards or wherever
such disposal materially affects ground
water quality.
131.308 Re i . .ion’. to atCr ifiiaIii ’
standard—.
a Each basin plan shall set forth the
water quality standards and or reconi-
mendations for revision of water quality
standards, including the antidegradation
statement, applicable to each body of
water or segment in the basin. or shall
include the 1cgal ci1 tion of such stand-
ards.
b Reconunendations for revisions of
standards shall consider the objectives
of the Act, as specified in section l0l ’al
of the Act, and Jie social, economic and
technical. including natural. considera -
tions for achieving these objectives.
c Each basin plan shall be revised
as necessary to refic-ct revisions of the
applicable water quality standards
131.309 Jtl.’nti ratio, 1 of retal ioIi l1ip
14. ) oilier l)lan4..
a’ Each basin plan shall evaluate the
need for and recommend the planning
area for future section 201 facilities
plans or section 208 areawide wastewater
management plans involving all or any
part of the basin, and establish the strat-
egy for the planning area, including
waste load allocations and target abate-
ment dates for significant dischargers
included.
(b) Each basin plan shall Identify the
relationship, indicate the current status,
and describe the extent of complemen-
tary influence of any. other water quality
or other applicable resource plan pre-
pared or under preparation which in-
volves all or any part of the basin, in-
cluding:
(1) Each designated areawide waste
treatment management plan under sec-
tion 208 of the Act:
‘21 Each facility plan for a proposed
project for the construction of treatment
works under section 201 of the Act;
3 ’ Each Level B basin plan pursuant
to section 209 of the Act or Pub. L. 89—90:
and
4( Other applicable resoure plan-
ring including:
(ii State land use programs.
ui Activities stemming from the
Coastal Zone Management Act (Pub. L.
92—583 1.
(iii) Activities stemming from the
Rural Development Act of 1972 Pub. L.
92—419).
iv) Other Federally assisted planning
and management programs.
c Areawide and facilities plans, when
approved by the States, shall modify ap-
plicable portions of a basin plan with
respect to:
‘1 number and location of discharges,
provided that the total waste load allo-
cated to the facilities or areawide plan
area by the basin plan is not exceeded;
‘2’ schedules of compliance or target
abatement dates; and
(3 the assessment of facilities needs.
d Each basin plan shall identify
separately each plan which has been
integrated with the basin plan.
§ 13 1.310 (;oordination of certain plan-
ning elements and terniS of permits.
‘a ‘ii The States and EPA will use
their best efforts to establish permit
terms and conditions consistent with the
applicable individual target effluent
limitations and target abatement dates
established in any approved basin plan;
ubject. however, to all the rights that
the permit applicant and other interested
pemons may have under State or Fed-
cml law to contest such target effluent
limitations and target abatement dates
in pci-mit issuance proceedings.
‘2’ The major milestones required to
track basin plan implementation con-
tained in each schedule of compliance
for significant dischargei’s established by
a pci-mit shall be iricoi’porated into the
basin plan at the first revision of the
basin plan which takes place following
LssUOnce of the permit.
b In a planning area where a basin
plan is under development, permit terms
and conditions proposed for any source
and basin plan preparation shall be co-
ordinated to assure that the basin plan
reflects information developed in con-
nection with the permit application and
conditions for effluent limitations and a
schedule of compliance proposed for the
permit.
Subpart D—Monitoring and Surveillance
§ 131.400 Relationship of monitoring
and surveillance program to basin
plans.
(a) Each basin plan shall be based
upon the best available monitoring and
surveillance data, as set forth in this
subpart, to determine the relationship
between instream water quality and in-
dividual sources of pollutants and, where
practicable, to determine the relation-
ship between land disposal and ground
water quality. Such data will facilitate
implementation of the basin plan.
(b) Each basin plan shall contain f or
each Water Quality segment:
(1) A program to monitor the total
stream pollutant loadings, including con-
tributions for significant parameters
from significant dischargers. which shall
be related to the total maximum daily
loads established by the basin plan pm--
suant to § 131.304; and
2) A continuing program for monitor-
ing in-stream water quality.
‘ci In areas where a State determines
that a ground water contamination prob-
lern exists or may exist from the disposal
of pollutants on land, in subsurface ex-
cavations or deep wells, the State. to
support the establishment of controls or
procedures to abate such pollution as
identified in § 131.307 shall conduct or
require to be conducted by the disposing
person or agency a monitoring survey or
continuing program of monitoring to de-
termine present or potential effects of
such disposal, where such disposal is not
prohibited,
‘di Additional description of the State
monitoring program is set forth in Sub-
part B of Part 35 of this title.
§ 131.101 Co erage of monitoring and
surveillaiire program,
In establishing the monitoring and
surveillance program for discrete water
segments, consideration shall be given
to the severity of the pollution and ap-
plicable water quality standards and
goals, including the use to be made of the
waters.
§ 131.402 I .e of’ monitoring —ur e
for ha’.in plan de elopinent.
Each basin plan shall incorporate the
results of any monitoring survey corn-
pleted prior to the date of adoption o!
the basin plan which provides current
data for the area covered by the basin
plan. If current data are riot available.
the State should conduct an adequate
monitoring survey to obtain the neces-
sary data before completion of the basin
plan.
§ 1.31.103 Ireq lieliev of n’onitoring
ilr e
Each basin plan shall provide that a
monitoring survey for the area within
Water Quality segments covered by the
basin plan will be repeated at appropri-
ately defined intervals, depending on the
variability of conditions and changes in
hydrologic or effluent regimes. The sur-
vey intervals shall be stated in the basin
plan.
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
19643
§ 131.404 Output of momtoring surveys.
The monitoring survey shall produce
sufficient Information to support the
planning for the area. Output shall in-
clude, but is not limited to, the follow .
Ing:
(a) A listing of all surface waters, by
stream segment or water zone, which do
not comply with applicable water quality
standards.
(b) In Water Quality segments, a
description of pollutant mass balances,
including estimates of the total pollutant
loads to be controlled In the segment.
(c) Input to the EPA water quality in..
formation system of basic data collected
during the monitoring survey, and
validation and correction of data avail-
able prior to the survey.
(d) A listing of stations, parameters,
and frequencies to be monitored to pro-
vide compliance, progress measurement,
and trend information required by this
chapter.
(e) A proposed schedule, based on
variability of stream quality, expected
changes in flow and effluent regimes, or
other Information, for the subsequent
monitoring survey to be undertaken in
the same basin.
§ 131.405 Water quality data from fixed
stations; input to EPA information
system.
(a) Each basin plan may provide for
the maintenance of a small number of
permanent in-stream water quality
trend evaluation stations at key locations
In each basin to measure progress toward
applicable water quality standards and
goals, trends In water quality, and com-
pliance with approved basin plans, and
where provided, shall be used as a basis
for completing the reports required by
305(b) of the Act.
(b) The operation of these stations
shall continue after the completion of
applicable monitoring surveys required
by this subpart.
(C) The State shall input data from
such stations to the EPA information
system In such manner as the State and
the Regional Administrator shall agree.
Subpart E—Completion and Review of
Basin Plans; Relation of Permits and
Grants
§ 131.500 Basin plan adoption.
Basin plans shall be officially adopted,
after appropriate public participation
as described In 131.502 as the
official water quality management plans
of the State. Background data not re-
quired to be included In the basin plans
need not be adopted, but should be made
available upon request.
§ 131.501 Certification.
Each basin plan shall include assur-
ances and a certification by the Governor
or his designee, that the plan is the offi-
cial State water quality management
plan for the hydrologic unit covered by
such plan, that the plan meets all ap-
plicable requirements of this Part 131
and Part 130 of this chapter and that the
plan will be used for establishing permit
conditlous, target abatement dates and
§ 13 1.502 Public participation.
(a) There shall be. conducted, prior to
the adoption or any substantive revision
of the basin plan and after reasonable
notice thereof, one or more public hear-
ings on the proposed basin plan or on
parts of the basin plan, in accordance
with EPA regulations promulgated pur-
suant to section 101(e) of the Act.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “public hearing” refers
to a hearing in which three basic ele-
ments of public participation are pres-
ent: Total public disclosure; planning
agency representation; and sufficient op-
portunity for expression of views by the
public. For the purposes of this section,
a public hearing need not be an adjudi-
catory hearing. Further explanation of
the public hearing process is contained in
Part 105 of this chapter.
(2) The term “substantive” includes
but is not limited to any significant re-
vision of water quality standards, total
maximum daily loads for Water Quality
segments, load allocations for individual
discbargers, effluent limitations, sched-
ules of compliance, or target abatement
dates.
(31 “Reasonable notice” includes, at
least 30 days prior to the date of each
hearing:
(I) Notice to the public by prominent
advertisement announcing the date,
time, and place of such hearing and the
availability oc the proposed basin plan
for public inspection; and
(ii) Notification to the Regional Ad-
ministrator.
(C) There shall be prepared and re-
,tained for submission to the Regional
Administrator upon his request a record
of each hearing. The record shall con-
tain, at a minimum, a list of witnesses
together with the text of each written
presentation.
(d) There shall be submitted with the
basin plan a description of any major
• controversy raised by the hearing and
the disposition thereof.
(e) The number and location of hear-
ings shall reflect the size of the planning
area and its population and population
distribution. Public participation and
contribution shall be encouraged, com-
mencing with the earliest possible stages
of basin plan development and continu-
ing throughout the period of the basin
plan preparation, including revisions
thereof. The State may conduct its pub-
lic hearing on the basin plan simul-
taneously with public hearings on per-
mits in the area covered by the basin
plan or In conjunction with any other
public hearing involving the significant
revision of water quality standards, total
maximum daily loads, load allocations,
effluent limitations or schedules of com-
pliance. If a public hearing was con-
ducted on a segment of the basin plan
for the purpose of the issuance of per-
mits or significantlY revising water qual-
ity standards, total maximum daily
loads, load allocations, effluent limita-
tions, or schedules of compliance, then
§ 13 1.503 Submission of basin plans.
Basin plan submission shall be accom-
plished by delivering five copies of the
adopted portions of the basin plan to
the 1 egional Administrator, together
with a letter from the Governor, or his
designee, notifying the Regional Admin-
istrator of such action.
§ 131.504 Re ’tew and approval or dis..
approval of basin plans.
The Regional Administrator sha 1 l
approve or disapprove the basin plan
submitted pursuant to § 131.503 within
30 days after the date of submission as
follows:
(a) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the basin plan conforms
with the requirements of the Act, this
part, the continuing planning process
and contiguous plans including neigh-
boring States’ plans, he shall notify the
Governor or his designee by letter.
(b) If the Regional Administrator de-
termines that the basin plan fails to
process or contiguous plans including
Act, this part, the continuing planning
conform with the requirements of the
those of neighboring states, he shall no-
tify the Governor or his designee by let-
ter and shall state:
(1) The specific revisions necessary to
obtain approval of the basin plan; and
(2) The time period for resubmission
of the basin plan.
(c) Where basin plans involving in-
terstate waters are found to be incom-
patible, the Regional Administrator shall
notify the Governor of each concerned
State of the specific areas of incompati-
bility.
§ 131.505 Revision of basin plans.
(a) At a minimum, the State shall
revise each basin plan within fIve years
of the last approval date. The basin
plan shall be revised such that it re-
mains a meaningful water quality man-
agement document for the five-year pe-
riod following the revisions. Revisions
on a more frequent basis should be made
where significant changes occur within
the basin. Revisions shall include, but
not be limited to, the most current and
realistic information on compliance
schedules or target abatement dates,
construction grant needs and priorities,
and waste load allocations. In addition,
the basin plan shall be revised such that
its increase in scope is in accordance
with § 131 .202.
(b) Revisions of the basin plan shall
be adopted after reasonable notice and
public hearings as prescribed in § 131.502.
(C) Revisions shall be submitted in
accordance with § 131,503.
(d) Review and approval or disap-
proval of basin plan revisions shall be
carried out in accordance with § 131.504.
§ 131.506 Prohibition of approval of
certain basin plans; withdrawal of
process approval.
The Regional Administrator shall not
approve an basin plan that does not
conform with the a,pproprlate require-
assessing priorities for awarding eon- this portion of the basin plan need riot
struction grants, be subject to additional public hearings.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
19644
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ments of section 303(e, 208b)(2)
(F—K), 303(d), and 314(a) of the Act,
the continuing planning process, and this
part. Substantial failure of any basin
plan to conform with the applicable re-
quirements of section 303(e) of the Act
and of this part may indicate that the
planning process by which such basin
plan was developed was deflcient and
may result in withdrawal of approval
of the planning process, or portions
thereof, relating to such basin plan. Ap-
proval of the State’s participation in the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System may be withdrawn if the
process is not fully approved.
§ 131.507 Prohibition of ecrtain eon.
IrIs(t ion grant
Before approving a grant for any proj-
ect for any treatment works under sec-
tion 201(g) of the Act, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall determine, pursuant
to 35.925—2 of this chapter, that such
works are in conformity with any appli-
cable basin plan approved In accordance
with this part artd Part 130 of this chap-
ter. Disapproval by the Regional Admin-
istrator of a basin plan, or relevant per-
tion thereof, for the area where a Droject
Is to be located may constitute grounds
f or not approving a grant for such proj-
ect, if the disapprovar of the basin plan,
or relevant portion thereof, is directly
related to the project.
§ 131.508 Discharge permit terms and
condiiions.
Each permit Issued under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
to any source covered by the basin plan
shall be prepared in accordance with the
basin plan, as provided in § 13 1.310. FaIl-
ure of any permit to conform with the
requirements of this section may con-
stitute grounds for the Regional Admin-
istrator or the Administrator to object to
the issuance of such permit.
§ 131.509 Separnbilih.
If any provision of this part., or the
application of any provision of this part
to any person o circumstance, Is held
invalid, the application of such provi-
sion to other persons or circumstances,
and the remainder of this part, shall not
be affected thereby.
IFR t)oc.’74—12558 Filed 5—31—74;8:45 ami
IEOEEAL IEGISTEE, VOL. 39, NO. 107—MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1974
-------
B- I
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS THROUGH MODELING
Water quality analysis throug modeling enables planners to predict
water quality under adjusted conditions of flow, temperature and pollutant
loads. Hence, It provides a basis for load allocation and effluent reduc-
tion determinations.
Water quality analysis is conducted by the following steps:
• Categorize the water body.
• Conceptualize the phenomena.
Consider alternative appropriate modeling
techniques.
• Select the least sophisticated adequate modeling
technique.
• Calibrate the selected model.
Validate the model.
• Predict water quality.
These steps are discussed in further detail below. It is expected that
in the actual development of the model, additional sources will be con-
sulted to supplement this general information.
A. Categorize the water body .
Water bodies may be categorized in one of three categories: Flowing
streams, estuaries, and lakes and impoundments. Dominant transport mech-
anisms differ in each category; hence, varying modeling techniques are
appropriate for differing categories. Further, the degree of sophistication
of technique within each water body category may also vary according to
conditions in the water. A combination of techniques should probably be
employed for analyses where more than one category of water body is involved.
-------
B— 2
B. Concep _ tualize the Phenomena .
The phenomena and interactions that occur in the water body must
be conceptualized for use in a model. Conceptualization consists of
reducing these phenomena to mathematical formulations or equations
which will describe variations of the phenomena in response to changes
in conditions. The selected model must reflect al I major, relevant
phenomena.
C. Consider Alternative Appropriate Model i ngTechniques.
I. Alternative modeling technicju .
The model to be used depends on the cal-egory(ies) of the water body(ies)
being analyzed (see paragdaph A), the type of water quality problem and the
complexity of the problem.
A preliminary investigation of the area to be modeled wiH indicate
the water body category(ies) and problem type(s). This investigation
normally will include review of maps and existing water quality and hydro-
logic data. (See Chapter II, Section A.) Existing data obtained in the
preliminary investigation should be used to aid in the determination of the
level of sophistication of the study. The object of the selection process
should be to utilize the minimum level of sophistication which will provide
sufficient detail to justify the selection of water quality management
strategies that wiH result in achieving water quality standards during
critical conditions.
For model selection purposes, the techniques may be broken into four
general types——A through D. These techniques are identified in Table B—I,
below. It should be noted that Types A, B, C and D represent arbitrary points
on a scale of techniques that range from simple to very complex, and shadings,
variations and combinations of techniques may be appropriate in a given case.
The most complex techniques, Type D, should be reserved for research efforts
into the most intricate water quality situations.
2. Data considerations in selecting technique .
While model selection is based ultimately on identifying the least
complicated adequate technique, the extent of data available or to be
acquired must also be considered.
-------
B- 3
Thble B-I
Wai-e - Quality Simulation Techniques A—C
Receiving Water Category Type Sophistication — —
F1o iing streams A Simplified steady state
B Steady state
C Transient state
D Complex
Estuaries A Simpi ified steady state
(one dimensional)
B Steady state (o .e or t o
dimensional
C lrans I ent (two di men lone I)
D Complex
Lakes and impoundments A Completely mixed
B One dimensionai vertically
mixcd
C Stratified
D Complex
-------
B—4
The Type A simplified steady state analysis should be a first try,
unless clearly inadequate. If consistent data exist or will be collected,
Type B steady state models can be validated and appl led to a low flow
analysis. The accuracy of the study is tied to the amount and complete-
ness of the data.
For Type C studies, detailed data sets are required to capture the
variations in water quality.
3. The risk factor as an element in selecting technique .
The water quality analysis and prediction developed by any model can
only approximate the actual water quality which will occur under the
various suggested hypotheses. The simpler models assume many coefficients
based on previous modeling experience. These assumptions wil.l never be
entirely correct for the distinct water body being analyzed; hence, remedia
measures (effluent reductions) based on the model predictions will not
result in water quality exactly as predicted by the model. Since unneces-
sarily stringent measures may result in costly overbuilding and inadequate
measures may fail to protect the aquatic ecosystem and achieve established
water quality goals, model selection must consider the degree of risk to
be accepted. Risks should be minimized where large construction fund out-
lays are required or where a particularly frail or valuable aquatic system
is at stake. Conversely, complex models which create a need for high cost,
lengthy data collection are not justified where, on balance, the conse-
quences of the probable degree of error would be relatively minor.
D. Select least sophisticated adequate modeling technique .
The least sophisticated modeling technique adequate for water
quality analysis and prediction should be selected and used where
needed in water quality segments to allocate waste loads and estab-
lish effluent reduction needs based on critical conditions for each
pa rarneter.
Table B—Il below summarizes the criteria for the selection of an
analytical technique. The table lists criteria for each of the four
levels of complexity (A, B, C and D). As has been noted, level D
studies should not generally be used. For each level of complexity,
the table presents the type of problems and water bodies for which the
level is appropriate, the planning characteristics (complexity and risk)
associated with that level and the time required for a study.
This table only serves as starting place in the selection process.
Each of the criteria should be broken down and studied in more detail
before making the final actual technique selection.
-------
TABfE B—I I
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF TECHNIQUES
Model Complexity
Water Quality Problems
and Variable
IaiI ?r Body
Planning
Characteristics
Time Required
for Study
Simpl if led
Analysis
(Type A)
0.0. (carbon and
nitrogen)
One—d i mens I ona I
streams and
estuaries
(completely
mixed).
a. Low risk of
capital and/or
environmental
quality degrada-
tion.
b. No alternate
strategies and
control options
available.
Days to
weeks
Transient I inear
kinetics analysis
a. Time varying 0.0.
nonpoint source
analysis, and temp--
era±ure. Simple
cut roph icat ion
analysis. Ful I
storm water overflow
ana I ys is.
h. Hater quality
p rob I ems.
Rivers, lakes,
and estuaries.
One or two-
dimensional
a. Moderate to
high risk of cap-
ital and environ -
mental quality
degradation.
b. Alternative
strategies and
control opt!ons
must be avui
6 to 24
months
Steady
state
a. D.0. (carbon and
One or two—
a. Low to moderate
2
to
9
linear
kinetics
nitrogen) tempera—
ture and nonpoint
dimensional
streams, estu—
risk of- capital
and environmental
months
(Type
B)
source.
b. Anticipated or
existing water
quality problems.
aries, rivers,
lakes.
quality degrada—
tion.
b. Alternative
strategies and
control options
must be available.
(Type C)
-------
TABLE B—Il
Model Complexity
Time variable
non—I inear
kinetics
analysis.
(Type D*)
Water Quality Problems
and Variable
a. Detailed eutro-
phication analysis
et. al.
b. Water quality
problems.
c. High growth of
area projected.
Water Body
All bodies of
water,
Planning
Characteristics
a. High risk of
capital and/or
envi ronmental
quality degrada-
tion.
b. Alternative
strategies and
control must be
available.
Time Required
for Study
12 to 36
months
*Type D studies are to be performed only in very complex situations and should be regarded as
research efforts.
-------
B- 7
E. Calibrate the selected model .
After a model is selected its reaction coefficient and other
parameters should be calculated and adjusted for the particular water
body being analyzed.
F. Validate the model .
Once a model is calibrated its validity should be tested so that
a measure of its rel iabi I ity is obtained. Validation should be done using
an independent set of observations. The calibrated model is then used to
predict water quality for conditions at the time of the validation set
sampling. The errors of estimate are then an indication of how well the
model replicates a particular state of the system. An analysis of errors
permits scaling the model reliability.
G. Predict water quality .
The model should be used to predict water qual ity for each parameter,
under the critical conditions for the parameter, using 5 year projected
waste loads. The first prediction should use effluent limitations based
on the best practicable technology (“BPT”) and secondary treatment pursuant
to sections 301(b)(l)(A) and (B) of the Act, unless those limitations are
clearly inadequate for the parameter. If BPT/secondary treatment is
inadequate, varying alternative load allocation/effluent reduction combi-
nations should be tried. A cost effective alternative calculated to achieve
all applicable water quality standards shoul& be selected.
------- |