EPA's ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS: A
PLANNIN6 COORDINATION PACKAGE FOR
FEDERAL LAND MANAGING AGENCIES
-------
<1
-------
CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 2"
III. The Safe Drinking Water Act 18
IV. The Federal Environmental Pesticides
Control Act of 1972 20
V. The Solid Air Act 23
VI. The Clean Air Act 26
VII. The Noise Control Act of 1972 32
Appendix I Section 208 Areawide Planning Programs in
EPA Region VIII 36
Appendix II Section 303(e) Basin Planning in EPA
Region VIII 46
FIGURES
Figure 1. Section 208 Planning Areas in EPA Region VIII ... 13
Figure 2. Air Quality Maintenance Planning Areas in
EPA Region VIII 29
TABLES
Table 1. State Officials Responsible for NPDES Permit
in EPA Region VIII 8
Table 2. State Water Supply Officials in EPA Region VIII. . . 19
Table 3. State Pesticides Officials in EPA Region VIII ... 22
Table 4. State Solid Waste Officials in EPA Region VIII ... 25
Table 5. State Air Quality Officials in EPA Region VIII ... 31
Table 6. State Noise Officials in EPA Region VIII 35
-------
INTRODUCTION
The following discussion of Federal environmental statutes is
Intended to guide planners of Federal agencies and other Interested
Individuals through some of the land use aspects of these laws, point
out the planning constraints they Impose, and draw attention to on-
going Federal, state, and local planning activities that may affect
the programs of other Federal agencies. Because of the breadth of
the materials covered and the rapid pace of events in this field, the
package has been designed to provide a brief introduction to certain
planning and land use aspects of several complex pieces of environ-
mental legislation together with sources of current, detailed inform-
ation that will be useful in carrying out the programs of various
agencies 1n harmony with EPA's legal mandates.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500), the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523), the Federal Envi-
ronmental Pesticides Control Act (P.L. 92-516), the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act (P.L. 89-272, as amended), the Clean Air Act (P.L. 91-604,
as amended), and the Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574) share
several things in common. First, enforcement or implementation of
these statutes by state authorities within the bounds of Federal
guidelines is emphasized, and Federal assistance in planning, train-
ing or other areas of Implementation 1s provided.
A second characteristic of these laws 1s that nearly all of them
require Federal compliance with substantive state and local pollution
control requirements 1n addition to compliance with Federal require-
ments. This mandate is repeated in Executive Order 11752, which
directs all agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal Government
to provide leadership in the effort to protect and enhance the quality
of our environment through cooperation with state and local govern-
ments and compliance with their pollution control laws and ordinances.
Finally, all of the acts mentioned above provide for public involve-
ment in one form or another. The public involvement provisions of the
acts provide citizens with access to planning processes, compliance
monitoring, and in some cases, direct judical remedies through liti-
gation in civil court.
Thus, Federal agencies face an awesome challenge 1n complying
with the letter and spirit of the environmental legislation dis-
cussed below. We trust that this challenge will be met with the
expertise and sensitivity of Federal land managers, and we hope that
the following will assist in making that job easier.
1
-------
P.L. 92-500, THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500) extensively revised existing Federal statutes concerning water
quality and began an ambitious program aimed at eliminating the dis-
charge of pollutants Into navigable waters* by 1985 and achieving an
interim goal of water quality that provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation
1n and on the water by July 1, 1983. The Act extends Federal protection
to the quality of all of the Nation's waters and provides states and
localities with financial assistance for water pollution abatement
and planning.
Section 313 of the Act specifies that all Federal agencies that
have jurisdiction over any facilities or properties and are engaged in
any activity that results 1n or potentially results in discharges of
pollutants must comply with Federal, state, local, and interstate re-
quirements for control and abatement of water pollution. Although the
President may, under certain circumstances, exempt Federal agencies
from some of the requirements of P.L. 92-500, Executive Order 11752
strengthens the provisions of the Act by requiring that the Federal
Government provide leadership in the nationwide effort to protect and
enhance the quality of our air, water and land resources through com-
pliance with applicable standards for prevention, control, and abate-
ment of environmental pollution in full cooperation with state and local
governments. Federal agencies are required to carry out this mandate
1n the design, construction, management, operation, and maintenance
of all government facilities, including buildings, installations, struc-
tures, lands, public works, equipment, aircraft, vessels, and other
vehicles and property owned by, or constructed or manufactured for the
purpose of leasing to the Federal Government.
Finally, Section 505 of the Act allows citizens to file suit against
any party, including agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal Gov-
ernment, that violates P.L. 92-500 or any regulations promulgated under
the Act by the Environmental Protection Agency or an authorized state
agency. The following discussion of the planning and land use constraints
imposed by the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 is aimed
at helping Federal agencies fulfill their responsibilities with respect
to Section 313 of the Act and Executive Order 11752 and reduce the like-
lihood of citizen suits for violations of the Act.
~Section 502(7) of the Act defines navigable waters to mean all the
waters of the United States, including territorial seas.
2
-------
Planning Constraints of P.L. 92-500
Effluent Limitations Sections 301, 302, 304(b), and 306 of the Act de-
fine the concept of effluent limitations and establish the principle
that any discharge of pollutants 1s unlawful and continues only because
of technological limitations or failure to use technical solutions that
are available. Section 301 treats existing point sources* of water
pollutants from various Industrial categories 1n two levels or phases.
The Environmental Protection Agency's role 1n setting standards for
these categories are outlined In Section 306 of the Act, and effluent
limitations, guidelines, and standards for a number of Industrial
categories and processes have been published pursuant to regulations
promulgated under this section of the Act (see 40 CFR 400 series).
Categories that might be of particular interest to Federal agencies
are those related to mining, oil production, timber processing, and
the operation of hospitals and laboratories.
The first level of performance specified by the Act requires the
use of the best practicable control technology as the minimum com-
pliance for all point sources by July 1, 1977. The best practicable
control technology 1n each category or subcategory represents the
average of the best existing performance by well operated plants,
and emphasizes both treatment at the end of the manufacturing process,
and process controls such as substituting higher quality materials
that cause less discharge of pollutants, changing processes or plant
operations, and Increasing the effectiveness of existing control
systems through better operation and maintenance.
By July 1, 1977 most municipal treatment plants must provide
secondary treatment as defined by EPA regulations and any other
treatment necessary to comply with EPA or State treatment standards
and compliance requirements. Federally funded municipal plants
built after June 30, 1974 must provide the best practicable treat-
ment for the category of operation, and, by July 1, 1983 all publicly
owned waste treatment plants must use the best practicable control
technology. Regulations defining the best practicable control
technology for municipal treatment systems are currently being
developed and will be made available when they are ready.
*A point source is defined as any discernible, confined, and dis-
crete conveyance, Including any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, con-
duit, well, discrete operations, or vessel or other floating craft
from which pollutants are or may be discharged. Pollution is de-
fined as the man-made or man induced alteration of the chemical,
physical, biological, and radiological Integrity of water, making
it less desirable for propagation of balanced indigenous popula-
tions of fish, for recreation, industry or wildlife uses.
3
-------
The second level, or phase of treatment specified in Section 301
is the best available control technology, which all point sources ex-
cept municipal treatment plants must put into operation by July 1, 1983.
The best available control technology will be based upon the very best
control and treatment measures that have been or are capable of being
economically achieved 1n a given category. The objective of this level
of treatment 1s to achieve the greatest possible uniformity among the
categories of point sources and to make reasonable progress toward
the 1985 goal of no discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters.
The guidelines for the best available control technology will be up-
dated periodically as control and treatment processes are refined.
In addition to the two levels or phases of effluent limitations
for existing sources, Section 306 of the Act also specifies a third
level or set of performance standards that applies to new sources.
A new source 1s a plant or facility that is constructed, or 1n some
cases modified after the Environmental Protection Agency published
standards in that category. The performance standards for new
sources are geared toward incorporating water quality objectives in-
to the design process and enabling the facility to accomodate further
upgrading of the standards toward the goal of eliminating discharge
of pollutants at lower economic costs.
Section 302 directs the Environmental Protection Agency to make
certain that the effluent limitations or performance standards dis-
cussed above work toward maintaining or reaching the water quality goals
of the Act. When discharges from one or more point sources that meet
performance standards Interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
water quality goals, EPA 1s required to set effluent limitations and
prescribe alternative effluent control strategies that will result in
reasonable progress toward these goals. Section 302 provides for public
involvement 1n the process of setting these performance standards and
alternative effluent control strategies.
Current information on the performance standards for various
categories of discharges and Information on recommended methods of
attaining the required levels of treatment may be obtained from the
Director, Enforcement Division, EPA, Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street,
Denver, Colorado 80203 303/637-3868.
Toxic Wastes and Pretreatment Standards Section 307 of P.L. 92-500
concerns toxic effluents and requires pretreatment of certain indus-
trial wastes before they are allowed to enter public treatment facili-
ties. Unlike other pollutants for which effluent limitations and
performance standards are based on the economic or technical feasibility
of treatment, the limitations for toxic substances are based on the
toxicity of the pollutant; Its persistence, degradability, and pre-
sence 1n aquatic organisms; the importance and abundance of the affected
species; and the toxicity of the pollutant after concentration in a
food chain or in combination with other substances. In addition,
4
-------
Section 302(f) forbids anyone from discharging any radiological, chemical,
or biological warfare agent, or high level radioactive waste into
navigable waters. Thus, technological and economic convenience are
pre-empted by any overriding threat to public health and welfare and
the protection of aquatic life. Aldrln, dleldrln, benzidine, cyanide
DDT (DDD & DDE), endrln, mercury, polychlorlnated blphenyls, and
toxaphene are currently listed as toxic substances under Section 307
of the Act.
The part of Section 307 pertaining to pretreatment requires that
Industrial pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by muni-
cipal treatment works or would interfere with their operation, be
pretreated 1n such a way as to assure that the public treatment works
will neither exceed any of Its effluent standards nor be disabled in
any way by incoming industrial wastewaters. The pretreatment standards
for wastes discharged Into municipal systems are designed to prevent
the discharge of joint treatment systems from exceeding the levels
that would be permitted if the Industrial wastes were completely
treated and discharged into the receiving waters instead of being
passed through municipal treatment works first.
Information on the standards and requirements for pretreatment
may be requested from the Director, Enforcement Division, EPA Region VIII.
Oil and Hazardous Substances Section 311 of the Act prohibits the
discharge of oil and hazardous substances Into navigable waters,
shorelines, or the contiguous zone of coastal waters around the
United States, and outlines the Environmental Protection Agency's
responsibilities in determining what materials are considered to be
oils and hazardous substances, the requirements for removing those
substances or mitigating their effects if they are discharged into
the Nation's waters, and the legal responsibilities of those who
pollute these waters with oil and hazardous substances. Regulations
promulgated under this section of the Act define oil as "oil of any
kind or in any form including, but not limited to petroleum, fuel
oil sludge, oil refuse, oil mixed with ballast or bilge, and oil mixed
with wastes other then dredged spoil" (40 CFR Part 110). Quantities
of oil that "violate applicable water quality standards" or cause a
film or sheen upon or discoloration of the surface of the water or
adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited
beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines, are
considered to be harmful quantities under these regulations.
Section 311(c)(2) directs the President to formulate and imple-
ment a National Contingency Plan for removal of oil and hazardous
substances. Regulations promulgated under this part of the Act
provide guidelines for planning to deal with emergencies at both
the national and regional level. These regulations also state that
all Federal agencies are responsible for minimizing discharges and
5
-------
for developing the capability to respond promptly in case of dis-
charges from facilities they operate or supervise. The regulations
are set forth in 40 CFR part 1510.
Under Section 311 (j)(l) of the Act, the President is directed
to issue regulations establishing procedures, methods, equipment,
and other requirements to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous
substances. EPA has published 011 Pollution Prevention Regulations
for Non-Transportation Related Onshore and Offshore Facilities
(40 CFR Part 112). These regulations apply to Federal agencies to
the same extent as any person.
The personnel of EPA's Emergency Planning and Response Branch
are responsible for carrying out the requirements of Section 311
of the Act and should be contacted for information on emergency
planning and other matters related to pollution of the Nation's
waters by oils and hazardous substances. The Emergency Planning and
Response Branch should also be notified of any oil spill, whenever
it occurs. A 24 hour telephone number for this purpose has been
installed in the EPA, Region VIII offices 1n Denver. The number is
303/837-3880.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program The permit program,
known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),
is the cornerstone of.the effort to implement the effluent limitations
and performance standards established under authority of P.L. 92-500.
The beauty of the permit program lies in the fact that it provides
the mechanism by which the water quality goals established in the
Act will be achieved. Under NPDES no one may discharge pollutants
Into navigable water without a permit to do so. However, rather
than being simply a license to pollute the Nation's waters, the
NPDES permit program contains several features that are designed
to eliminate the discharge of pollutants Into navigable waters.
These features, which Include performance standards, compliance
schedules, monitoring requirements and other specifications or
conditions are summarized in the enclosed booklet, "Toward Cleaner
Water".
Until recently, smaller feedlots, storm sewers, and agricul-
tural and silvicultural dischargers were administratively excluded
from the permit program and exempted from the effluent limitations
of the Act. However, in a decision in the case of the Natural
Resources Defense Council vs. Russell Train, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia ruled that EPA's exclusion of these
categories from the requirements of the permit systems is illegal,
and that all point sources fall under the requirements of the permit
system. The Court ordered EPA to publish proposed regulations
extending the NPDES permit program to previously excluded small
feedlots and to storm sewers by November 10, 1975, and gave the
6
-------
agency until February 10, 1975 to publish proposed regulations
extending the permit program to silvlcultural and agricultural
point sources. Current detailed information on the requirements of
the permit system may be obtained from Mr. Evan D. D1ld1ne, Permits
Administration & Compliance Branch, Enforcement Division, EPA-
Reglon VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203,
303/837-3760.
Section 402 of the Act provides for either State or Federal
administration of the NPDES Programs. States may, under the
guidance of EPA, carry out the NPDES permit program as long as
the State programs are consistent with the requirements of the
Act. However, when the states do not wish to carry out the NPDES
permit program the Environmental Protection Agency is responsible
for carrying 1t out. The states 1n EPA-Region VIII that have the
authority, resources and ability to implement the NPDES program
and have been delegated the authority to do so include Colorado,
Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota. South Dakota and Utah have not
been delegated the authority to issue discharge permits under the
NPDES program and EPA 1s responsible for all permits. In these
states permits are drafted by the State, but the authority to
Issue the permit remains with EPA.
Federal agencies must also comply with Section 402 of the Act
by obtaining a permit to discharge pollutants into the Nation's
waters. Unlike other dischargers of pollutants, Federal agencies
must obtain discharge permits from the Environmental Protection
Agency, whether or not the point source is located in a state that
has been delegated the responsibility to carry out the permit
program. This requirement of the Act has been under attack in the
courts, however, and it may be subject to change. Two states,
Washington and California, have successfully challenged EPA's
authority to grant permits to Federal agencies in states that have
been delegated the authority to issue NPDES permits. The challenge
1s aimed at who will Issue discharge permits to Federal agencies
rather than tEe requirement that all Federal agencies have discharge
permits. The requirement that all Federal dischargers have permits
will not be altered, regardless of changes in EPA regulations or
the outcome of appleals to higher courts. Questions about NPDES
permits for Federal agencies or other aspects of the program may be
addressed to the Enforcement Division, EPA-Region VIII. 1860 Lincoln
Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, 303/837-3868.
Finally, Section 402 also specifies that the NPDES process is
apubllc one, available to all interested citizens and groups. The
views of the public are evaluated 1n determining whether or not a
permit will be issued, hearings may be held, and the permit itself
is a public document. In addition, the public 1s entitled to
examine the monitoring and compliance reports that permit holders
7
-------
Table 1
State Officials Responsible for NPDES
Permits in EPA Region VIII
COLORADO
SOUTH DAKOTA
Arden Wall urn
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/388-6111
MONTANA
Jim Brown
Water Quality Bureau
Department of Health &
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-2406
NORTH DAKOTA
Frank Mateczek
Division of Water Supply
& Pollution Control
Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2386
Richard Howard
Water Quality Control Program
Department of Environmental
Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
UTAH
Cecil Carrol
Room 4223
Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
801/524-5275
or
Calvin Sudweeks, Chief
Water Quality Section
Bureau of Environmental Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/338-6146
WYOMING
John Wagner
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental
Protection
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307/777-7781
*A11 NPDES permits are issued by EPA with technical assistance from the state.
8
-------
must file with EPA or the State Agency responsible for carrying out
the permit program. Thus, the public and other interested groups can
play a decisive role in the operation of the permit system.
Land Use Planning Aspects of PL 92-500
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution Section 304(e) of the Act directs the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide guidelines for identifying
and evaluating the nature and extent of non-point sources* of pollu-
tants and processes, procedures, and methods of controlling them.
Section 208 requires the states to Implement control measures for
non-point sources of pollution. A list of some of the EPA publications
on non-point source pollution prepared pursuant to section 304(e)
of the Act 1s attached. The requirements of section 208 will be
discussed 1n a later section.
As point sources such as municipal treatment systems and industrial
discharges are brought under the controls required by the Act, the
problem of nonpoint sources will emerge as the remaining barrier
to achieving the 1983 and 1985 water quality goals. For example,
once secondary treatment has been provided in cities, storm generated
nonpoint source discharges may account for between 40 and 80 percent
of the total annual load of oxygen demanding pollutants discharged
Into surface waters 1n addition to significant amounts of sediments,
nutrients, and heavy metals. The environmental effects of these
urban runoff pollutants 1s magnified by their sudden entry into
surface waters during the Initial period of stormwater runoff when
accumulated pollutants are flushed Into surface waters from city
streets and sewer systems. In rural areas, nonpoint sources such
as cultural practices and land use patterns are often the single
most Important causes of water pollution. Overall, approximately 40
percent of the water quality standards violations in 1972 were
attributable to nonpoint sources.
*Nonpoint sources of pollutants are those that are discharged
into a body of water from any non-confined area. Pollution resulting
from agricultural and s11vicultural activities, including runoff from
fields and crop and forest lands; mining activities, including runoff
from new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and underground
mines; all construction activity, including runoff from the facilities
resulting from such construction; the disposal of pollutants in wells
or 1n subsurface excavations; salt water intrusion resulting from
reductions 1n fresh water flow from any cause, including extraction
of ground water, irrigation, obstruction, and diversion; and changes
in the movement, flow or circulation of any navigable waters or ground
waters, Including changes caused by the construction of dams, levees,
channels, caseuways, or flow diversions are included among the non-
point sources listed in the Act.
9
-------
Unlike point sources, for which pollution control may readily be
achieved through treatment of wastewater discharges at "the end of
the pipe", the diffuse nature of nonpolnt sources requires a
different approach. Here, the emphasis is on prevention or manage-
ment of water pollution through measures such as changes in land
use or changes 1n the way certain activities are carried out, rather
than treatment of waters after they are polluted.
<
The term, best management practice (BMP), has been applied to the
strategy for dealing with nonpoint sources of pollution. Proposed
regulations (40 CFR 130) define a best management practice to mean a
practice or combination of practices that is determined by a state after
problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate
public participation to be practicable and most effective in preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by diffuse sources to a
level compatible with water quality goals. Best management practices
differ from the best practicable control technology and the best
available control technology discussed 1n a previous section, in
that the best management practices are aimed primarily at prevention
of nonpoint source pollution, they must be tailored to the envlron-
mental conditions or parameters of the area in which the BMP 1s to be
applied, and the BMP must be applied to a specific pollution generating
activity, such as road building or logging.
Although the term, best management practice, is a relatively new one
the concept may be found in long standing conservation practices and the
policies and regulations of most Federal land managing agencies. In most
cases the land use requirements of water quality regulations will merely
strengthen the authority that agencies already have over their own land
use practices and the activities of concessioners, lessees, and other
tenants.
Best management practices formulated under general EPA guidelines
will be instituted by State and local agencies with effective legal authority
to do so. Where existing authorities will not suffice, new legislation
will be sought so that the BMP's can be Implemented. Initially, state
responsibilities will involve an assessment of the nature and extent of
nonpoint sources and establishment of a set of priorities for planning
and implementation purposes. By early fiscal year 1976, states in a
position to do so will begin implementing regulatory programs and developing
five year work plans for the control of nonpoint source pollution. The
first two years of planning activities will be directed toward assessing
nonpoint problems and needs. Then, as various categories of nonpoint
source pollution are identified, a schedule for their control will be
developed. Implementation for non-point source pollution control 1s
scheduled to begin 1n July 1977 and should be completed by July 1, 1983.
In compliance with Section 313 of the act and Executive Order 11752,
40 CFR Part 130.34 directs all Federal agencies to comply with substantive
state, Interstate, and local pollution control and abatement requirements
10
-------
and to cooperate with the states in formulating and implementing water
quality management plans. These directives apply equally to point and
nonpoint source controls and Federal agencies are expected to comply with
or exceed the requirements of state best management practices for nonpoint
source control in'the management of Federal lands. Thus appropriate
BbfP'e should be brought to bear on all existing Federal planning programs,
and they should be documented in environmental statements, work plans,
master plans, project plans, and other such publications. Permits,
leases, contracts, and licenses issued by Federal agencies are also appro-
priate mechanisms for Incorporating best management practices Into the daily
business of the Federal government. In the event that disputes or conflicts
arise between Federal agencies and state, local, or Interstate agencies
over matters that affect the application of or compliance with pollution
control or abatement requirements, such as BMP's, the regulations direct
EPA to mediate the dispute. If mediation by EPA falls to resolve the
conflict, the matter will be referred to the Office of Management and
Budget under the provisions of Executive Order 11752.
Water Quality Planning. The planning requirements of the Act form the
basis for implementing the best management practices for the control of
nonpoint source water pollution on both public and private lands. The
Act provides for several levels of planning and Includes provisions for
solving both point and nonpoint source pollution problems in order to
achieve the 1983 and 1985 water quality goals. In general, the planning
activities required by PL 92-500 are carried out in steps during which the
problem 1s first analyzed, the aspects of the problem that are most amenable
to solution are identified, solutions to the problem are implemented, and
further monitoring and analyses of water quality are carried out to determine
which problems are to be attacked 1n the next phases of pollution control
activities. All of these activities take place 1n the context of facility
planning (Section 201), Areawlde Wastewater Management Planning (Section 208),
Statewide 208 planning, river basin water quality management plans required
under Section 303(e) of the Act, Level B studies, and annual reports sub-
mitted by the States (Section 305). A brief discussion of each of these
follows:
Facility Planning - Section 201 of the Act requires that Federally supported
municipal treatment facilities employ cost-effective methods of treating
or controlling both point and nonpoint pollution and that they be suitably
adapted to local conditions. Through the environmental Impact statement
process the environmental, economic, and social impact of construction grants
must be identified and the effects of the project on other programs, such as
air quality and solid waste management must be evaluated. Facility plans must
be 1n harmony with other environmental programs and the open space and recrea-
tion needs of the communities they serve. They must provide the best practi-
cable waste treatment and be designed with a view toward future adaptations
that will be required in order to attain the 1985 goal of no discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters.
11
-------
Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning - Section 208 of PL 92-500
provides local agencies with federal support and guidance for Intensive
water quality planning and Implementation of comprehensive water pollution
control programs for areas that have substantial water quality problems.
Section 208 planning areas may be designated 1n a number of ways, and the
designated areas may vary considerably 1n size and characteristics. In EPA-
Reglon VIII, for example, Section 208 planning areas range in size from the
Salt Lake County 208 area in Utah to the eleven county Southcentral North
Dakota area, and the problems addressed in the designated areas include the
water quality problems of urban-industrial concentrations, areas impacted
by energy development, and areas requiring special pollution control measures
1n order to protect outstanding scenic and recreational values. The Section
208 planning areas in EPA-Region VIII are identified in figure 1, and more
information on 208 planning 1n each of the states 1s included in Appendix 1.
The purpose of Section 208 plans 1s to identify all wastes gene-
rated 1n the designated area and the treatment facilities needed to
handle these wastes over a 20 year period. The plan analyzes alterna-
tive treatment systems, their Impacts, and their economic feasibility.
It also identifies priorities for construction and means of financing
the facilities required. Control measures for nonpolnt sources of
pollution are Included 1n the plan as well as plans for environmentally
sound methods of disposing of solid wastes and sewage sludge. Thus,
Section 208 planning also provides a mechanism whereby water quality
programs may be coordinated with other environmental programs, such as
land use planning, and air quality and solid waste management planning.
Areawide treatment plans must be compatible with the general goals
outlined 1n basin plans and other water resource plans developed for
the area and must Identify governmental organizations that can effectively
carry out the plan. Where such organizations either do not exist or do
not have sufficient authority to carry out the plan, legislative needs
may be outlined 1n the plan. The agency or combination of agencies
designated to implement the plan must have authority to design, build
and maintain treatment works; obtain and utilize grants and other revenues
from communities and industries discharging into treatment facilities;
obtain permits to discharge wastes and insure that discharges meet all
applicable standards; and refuse to accept wastes from any new source 1f
it would cause the facility to violate any applicable effluent standard.
These authorities, together with any land use or zoning requirements of the
plan, may rest with a variety of governmental agencies, ranging from the
local to the Federal level. Intergovernmental agreements, contracts,
and memoranda of understanding between various entities are used to bring
these diverse areas of authority to bear on the various facets of the
areawide waste treatment management plan. As a part of the implementation
of a 208 plan, for example, Federal agencies participating 1n the develop-
ment of the plan may agree to implement controls on certain activities that
take place on lands under their jurisdiction in order to reduce the amount
of suspended or dissolved solids in waters that drain from Federal lands,
in the 208 planning area. Such agreements will play an important role in
the successful implementation of 208 plans in EPA-Reg1on VIII.
12
-------
208 Areas
&
-------
208 AREAS IN REGION VIII
ENERGY-IMPACTED AREAS
1. Yellowstone-Tongue, Montana
2. Middle Yellowstone, Montana
3. Colorado West, Colorado
4. Southeastern Utah
5. Uintah Basin, Utah
6. Five County, Utah
7. Powder River, Wyoming
8. Green River, Wyoming
9. Southcentral N.D. (Lewis & Clark)
SMSA AREAS
10. Denver Area, Colorado
11. Pueblo Area, Colorado
12. Colorado Springs, Colorado
13. Larimer-Weld Counties, Colorado
14. Salt Lake County, Utah
15. Provo Area, Utah
16. Weber-Davis Counties, Utah
17. Sioux Falls, South Dakota
PRESERVATION/RECREATION AREAS
18. Flathead Drainage, Montana
19. Gallatin Drainage, Montana
20. Northwest Colorado
21. Black Hills, South Dakota
22. Jackson Hole, Wyoming
14
-------
Appendix I contains additional Information on each of the 208
planning areas 1n Region VIII and Includes the names, addresses, and
telephone numbers of persons to contact for additional Information.
Involvement of Federal agencies in the 208 planning areas 1s essential
to the success of the program and will be helpful in coordinating the
pollution control activities of Federal agencies with local efforts to
protect and enhance the environment.
Statewide 208 Planning - In order to provide a unified approach to solving
or preventing pollution problems 1n non-designated areas, Section 208(a)(6)
of the Act directs states to act as the planning agency for all portions
of the state that are not specifically designated for detailed areawlde
waste treatment planning. The statewide 208 plan will Identify sources
of pollution and measures needed to treat or control water pollution from point
and non-point sources over a 20 year period. It will also establish priorities
and schedules for construction of treatment works and Identify agencies to
build and operate them. Statewide 208 planning encompasses basically the
same elements of water quality planning as areawlde 208 planning. However,
since pollution problems may be considerably less severe 1n nondesignated
areas then 1n designated 208 planning areas, the level of detail required
to adequately plan for the control and prevention of pollution in
nondesignated areas may differ considerably from that required in
designated areas. Thus, the major differences between statewide
and local 208 planning are the level of government acting as planning
agency and the level of detail to which the plan is pursued.
Section 303(e) Basin Plans - Section 303(e) requires states to maintain
a continuing planning process aimed at developing plans and procedures
for Implementing effluent limitations and compliance schedules consistent
with the Act and establishing priorities for construction of treatment
works. Section 303(e) planning 1s conducted at the river basin level and
includes an inventory of water quality and an analysis of water quality
problems. On the basis of the Inventory and analysis elements of the
plan, management strategies are developed and monitoring and surveillance
procedures are established 1n order to measure progress toward accomplishing
the goals outlined 1n the plan and provide a basis for future revisions.
The first phase of Section 303(e) planning began 1n 1973 and implementation
activities under this phase of 303(e) planning has already begun 1n many
areas.
Initially, Section 303(e) planning was directed only at planning
for point sources, and nonpoint sources were not considered. Now,
however, 1t is EPA's policy to require that all 303(e) basin plans
address the problem of nonpoint sources of water pollution. Since the
assessment of nonpoint source pollution problems and development of
effective ways of solving them are time consuming processes, the task of
bring pollution from nonpoint sources under control will proceed in
phases, and each revision of the basin plans will bring a higher level
of control.
15
-------
Federal land managing agencies may find the data and analyses
presented in 303(e) basin plans useful in determining what a basin's
water quality problems are and the approaches that will be taken in
solving the problems 1ndent1f1ed 1n the plan. Additional information
on 303(e) basin planning 1n the six states of Region VIII is Included
1n Appendix II, which contains the names and addresses of persons to
contact for Information on planning activities that are underway and
for copies of completed plans.
In order to streamline the planning process and increase its effective-
ness, EPA has recently proposed new regulations that will combine statewide
208 planning and 303(e) basin planning into a single continuing state planning
process (see 40 CFR Parts 130-131, Federal Register 40 (137): 29882 - 29891;
see also Federal Register 40 (148): 32133 - 32136). These regulations
describe the necessary elements of plans that will satisfy the Act's require-
ments for a continuing statewide planning program as required by Section 303(e),
Identify critical waters and total maximum daily waste loads pursuant to
Section 303(d), provide an annual assessment and projection of water quality
and related information (Section 305(b) report), prioritize treatment
facilities construction needs, and carry out a number of other requirements
of PL 92-500. The process will result in a state strategy for preventing
and controlling water pollution over a five year period, to be updated
annually. Planning will proceed on a river basin level, and it will be
conducted by the states, with participation from local, regional, and Federal
agencies. The planning process will include provisions for water pollutants
from Federal lands and facilities and Federal participation in the develop-
ment of plans to bring these sources under control. On a broad level, Federal
compliance with these water quality management plans is based on Executive
Order 11752, which directs all Federal agencies to comply with substantive
state, Interstate, and local requirements for control and abatement of
pollution, and section 304(j) of PL 92-500, which directs EPA to enter into
agreements with the Secretaries of Agriculture, the Army, and the Interior
to provide for maximum utilization of appropriate programs authorized under
other Federal laws for the purpose of achieving and maintaining water quality
through Implementation of plans approved under Section 208 of the Act. In
addition to these broad authorities Section 130.34 of 40 CFR Part 130 directs
Federal agencies to cooperate and give support to state governmental entities
in the formulation and Implementation of state water quality management plans
for Federal areas and areas contiguous with Federally owned areas.
The planning cycle under these new regulations begins during 1975-
1976, and the first plans must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator
for pre-adoption review by April 11, 1978. The plans must be submitted
to EPA for final approval no later than November 1, 1978. Questions con-
cerning these regulations and the states of combined planning activities
in EPA-Region VIII should be addressed to Mr. Roger Frenette, Chief;
Statewide Planning Section; Water Programs Division; EPA-Reg1on VIII;
1860 Lincoln Street; Denver, Colorado 80203; 303/837-4963.
16
-------
Section 305(b) Reports - Section 305(b) of the Act requires each state
to submit an annual report to EPA. The state's report 1s to Inventory
water quality within Its borders and analyze the extent to which the
goals of the Act have been accomplished. The 305(b) report must also
describe what additional measures will be required In order to achieve
the goals, the environmental Impacts, economic and social costs and
benefits of these measures, and the time required to meet the 1983 goals
of the Act. The report must give attention to the nature and extent of
nonpolnt sources of pollution and must describe measures that will be
used in controlling nonpolnt source pollution. Since the information
1n the 305(b) report may be collected from the various planning activities
of state and local agencies, the 305(b) report is not really a plan, but
a window through which the progress of all of the State's planning and
Implementation efforts can be observed. Once the continuing planning process
discussed above 1s underway, the annual 305(b) report will be included among
the outputs of statewide combined planning carried out under 40 CFR Parts
130 and 131.
All six states of Region VIII completed their first 305(b) assessment
1n 1975.
Level B Planning - Section 209 of the Act directs the President, acting
through the Water Resources Council, to complete long range planning
for the Nation's major drainage basins. This planning, called Level B
planning, brings together State and Federal agencies with statutory
responsibilities for water quality control, land management, water resources
development, flood control, transportation and recreation planning.
Level B planning is typically conducted under the auspices of a River
Basin Commission or similar organization made up of representatives from
the various interested agencies. Level B plans consider economic
growth patterns, population changes, air and water quality, long term
needs for water resources development, future demands for recreation
opportunities, and other parameters. Comprehensive program alternatives
for the basin are developed and analyzed, and future project plans and
Federal land management plans are developed within the framework developed
1n the Level B plan.
17
-------
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523) extends Federal regula-
tions for drinking water to practically all suppliers of water for
human consumption, provides for the protection of groundwaters from
pollution that would diminish their usefulness as drinking water
supplies, and appropriates funds for research, training, technical
assistance, and demonstration projects. The Act also gives states
primary enforcement authority wherever the condition specified 1n
Section 1413(a) are satisfied.
Section 1401 of the Safe Drinking Water Act defines a public water
system as a system for the provision to the public of piped water for
human consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections or
regularly (at least 60 days per year) serves at least 25 individuals.
Section 1447 requires all Federal agencies and Indian communities
that have jurisdiction over water supply systems to comply with the terms
of the Act, unless the President determines that a waiver of the require-
ments of the law 1s 1n the interest of national security.
In addition to complying with the regulations established to protect
the quality of public water supplies, Federal agencies should be familiar
with aspects of the Act and regulations that relate to land use planning.
First, Section 1421 prohibits any underground Injection of contaminants
without a permit and specifies that no permits will be granted 1f the
Injection would endanger drinking water sources. Furthermore, this sec-
tion declares that endangerment occurs whenever underground injection
may result 1n a violation of the national primary drinking water standards
or otherwise endanger public health.
Section 1424 of the Safe Drinking Water Act provides further protec-
tion to aquifers that are an area's sole or principal source of drinking
water by enabling the Environmental Protection Agency to halt underground
injection of contaminants Into such aquifers and to prohibit any Federal
assistance (such as grants, contracts, loans, etc.) to any project that
might endanger such an aquifer. In addition, it 1s the Federal agency's
responsibility to make sure that all lessees, concessioners and other
tenants on Federal lands comply with the requirements of the Act.
The interim primary drinking water regulations to be promulgated
under the Act will require that new or expanded public water supply
systems avoid, to the extent practicable, locating facilities where
they would be endangered by earthquakes, floods, fires, or other
disasters. These siting requirements are designed to assure continuous
supplies of safe drinking water during natural and man-caused adver-
sities such as fires, earthquakes, and floods. Further details on
these regulations and other aspects of the Safe Drinking Water Act may
be obtained from Albert V. Soukup, Chief, Water Supply Section, Con-
trol Technology Branch; Water Division; EPA - Region VIII; 1860
Lincoln Street; Denver, Colorado 80203; 303/837-2735; or the state
water supply officials shown in Table 2.
18
-------
Table 2
State Water Supply Officials in
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
COLORADO
Dr. Edward Pugs ley
Director
Engineering & Sanitation Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/388-6111 Ext. 325
MONTANA
Donald G. Will ems, Chief
Water Quality Bureau
Department of Health &
Environmental Sciences
Board of Health Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-2406
NORTH DAKOTA
Norman L. Peterson, Director
Division of Water Supply &
Pollution Control
N.D. State Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2386
SOUTH DAKOTA
John P. Hatch, Chief
Water Hygiene Program
Department of Environmental
Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
UTAH
Richard D. Hansen
Assistant Chief
Water Quality Section
Bureau of Environmental Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/328-6146
WYOMING
Arthur Williamson
Administrator
Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307/777-7391
19
-------
FEDERAL ENVIRONEMNTAL PESTICIDE CONTROL
ACT OF 1972 (P.L. 92-516)
Because of the widespread use of pesticides in the control of
unwanted vegetation and Insect pests, the 1972 amendments to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act are important to
Federal land managing agencies. The Act now requires registration
of all pesticides and certification of the people who use or super-
vise the use of certain pesticides. It also extends liability for
misuse of pesticides to the persons who use them and establishes re-
quirements for safe storage and disposal of pesticides, pesticide
containers and pesticide wastes.
Section 3 of the Act requires that all pesticides be registered
with EPA. This requirement Includes provisions for labeling pesti-
cides with Instructions for their safe use and directions for proper
disposal of empty pesticide containers and other contaminated wastes.
Unlike previous Federal pesticide legislation, the Federal Environ-
mental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 (Section 12(a)(2)(G)) establishes
severe penalties for failure to follow pesticide label instructions
and provides for strict enforcement of the law by either the Environ-
mental Protection Agency or State agencies with authority to do so.
Section 4 of the Act provides further control over the use of
pesticides by requiring that the competence of applicators of certain
pesticides be certified by an approved state agency. The states in
EPA region VIII are developing plans for training and certification
of pesticide applicators in order to carry out this provision of the
Act. The names and addresses of officials responsible for pesticides
programs 1n each state 1n Region VIII are shown in Table 3.
Federal regulations established pursuant to sections 19(a) and
25(a) of the act (see 40CFR part 165) recommend that storage sites
for pesticides be selected and designed to take into account the
quantity and toxicity of the materials being stored and require
that places subject to flooding or geologic instability be avoided
1n order to prevent contamination of surface or ground waters by
pesticides. These regulations also contain recommendations for safe
methods of disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. Pesti-
cides may be disposed of in a variety of ways, depending on the kind
and amount of material to be disposed of and the means of disposal
that are available. In any case, however, pesticides must be dis-
posed of in ways that are compatible with the requirements of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 80-272, as amended), The Clean Air
Act (P.L. 91-604, as amended), The Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments (P.L. 92-500), the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523),
and state and local laws governing the use and disposal of pesticides.
20
-------
Additional information on Federal, State, or local regulations
concerning the transportation, storage, use, or disposal of pesti-
cides may be obtained from the State officials shown 1n Table 3 or
Mr. Ivan W. Dodson; Jr., Chief Pesticides Branch; Hazardous Materials
Control Division; EPA, Region VIII; 1860 Lincoln Street; Denver, Colo-
rado 80203 303/837-3926. Accidents Involving pollution or potential
pollution of surface or ground waters by pesticides should Immediately
be reported to Mr. C. Alvln Yorke, Chief; Emergency Planning and Re-
sponse Branch; Surveillance and Analysis Division; EPA, Region VIII,
303/837-3880; other pesticide related accidents should be reported to
Mr. Dan Bench; Pesticides Branch; Hazardous Materials Control Division;
EPA, Region VIII; 1860 Lincoln Street; Denver, Colorado 80203, 303/
837-3926 or the state officials listed below.
21
-------
Table 3
State officials responsible for programs under the
Federal Environmental Pesticides Control Act of 1972
COLORADO
Robert I. Sullivan, Director
Division of Plant Industry
Department of Agrigulture
State Services Building
1525 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
303/892-2838
MONTANA
Gary Gingery, Administrator
Pesticides Control Division
Department of Agriculture
Captiol Annex Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-3730
NORTH DAKOTA
Larry Kleingartner, Pesticide Coordinator
North Dakota Department of Agriculture
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2232
SOUTH DAKOTA
Roger H. Pearson, Director
Division of Agriculture and
Regulation and Inspection
Department of Agriculture
State Office Building #1
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3375
UTAH
Ray Downs, Director
Division of Plant Industry
Department of Agriculture
Room 412, State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
801/328-5421
WYOMING
Walter H. Patch, Director
Division of Plant Industry
Department of Agriculture
2219 Cary Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
307/777-7321
22
-------
THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT
The Solid Waste Disposal Act (P.L. 89-272, as amended) is aimed
at encouraging environmentally sould disposal of solid waste and re-
covery of materials and energy resources from solid wastes through
technical and financial assistance to states and localities for plan-
ning and demonstration projects. It also provides for Federal re-
search and development and Federally promulgated guidelines and
regulations.
The planning and land use implications of the Act are impor-
tant. Land use decisions affect the nature and amount of solid wastes
to be recycled or disposed of, and conversely, solid waste management
decisions influence land use 1n ways that range from the selection of
methods to dispose of solid wastes to the effects of resource recovery
on the amount of land used to produce or extract primary, as opposed to
recycled, materials and energy.
Planning for solid waste management occurs at both the state and
local level. All of the states 1n EPA - Region VIII have completed
statewide plans that consist of an assessment of solid waste problems
and a plan to guide solid waste management. Strategy papers on special
solid waste management problems, such as the disposal of hazardous
wastes, are also being developed at the statewide level on a contin-
uing basis. In addition, certain localities faced with serious solid
waste problems, such as the disposal of mining residues or the waste
management problems engendered by urban growth, receive grants to
support solid waste management planning and demonstration projects.
In general, the control or regulation of solid waste disposal
1s held in combined authority between the states, which formulate
guidelines and review potential sites, and local (usually county
or regional) authorities who determine which of the suitable sites
or methods of disposal will be used. Additional information on state
and local planning activities, demonstration projects, and regula-
tions may be obtained from the solid waste management officials whose
names and addresses are listed in Table 4.
Executive Order 11752 requires that all Federal agencies comply
with State, interstate and local Solid Waste Management requirements
1n furtherance of the purposes and policies of the Solid Waste Dis-
posal Act, as amended, and Section 211 of the Act contains special
requirements for Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over facil-
ities that may involve the agency in waste disposal activities.
Section 211 directs such agencies and lessees, tenants and conces-
sioners on Federal lands and facilities to comply with the guidelines
promulgated under Section 209 of the Act. To date, guidelines for
23
-------
thermal processing and land disposal of waste have been published
(40CFR Parts 240 and 241) and additional regulations on other as-
pects of solid waste management are forthcoming.
A special solid waste disposal problem that arises from time to
time 1n EPA - Region VIII concerns safe disposal of radioactive ura-
nium mine tailings on patented lands. Private companies operating
uranium mines on Federal lands may apply for and be granted a patent
from the Federal government which transfers ownership of the land in
question from the government to the company for use as mill sites and
disposal areas. Because of the change 1n ownership, disposal of ura-
nium mine tailings on these lands 1s outside of Federal jurisdiction,
and only state and local measures can be effective in controlling
methods of disposal and long term maintenance of radioactive tailings.
Colorado has specific regulations governing long term control of ura-
nium mine tailings and 1s a party to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
agreement on safe methods of radioactive mine tailings disposal. South
Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, however, have no controls over disposal of
these wastes, and tailings disposal on patented lands in these states
is unregulated. When tailings are disposed improperly on these lands
the area becomes a liability to the taxpayers or subsequent owners of
the land, and a radiation hazard that may persist for several thousand
years has been created. Federal agencies can avoid this problem by
not patenting land for tailings disposal areas. Instead, agencies can
maintain ownership of the land and control the methods used to dispose
of radioactive mine wastes through mineral lease stipulations. Mineral
leases should require the lessee to comply with the American National
Standards Institute "Standards for Stabilization of Uranium-Thorium
Milling Waste-Retention Systems (H313-1974)" and the Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission's guidelines.
Any Federal agency planning to issue a permit or license for
solid waste disposal on Federal land must first submit the proposed
license or permit to EPA for review. Planners for Federal agencies
should consult with Mr. Lawrence Gazda, Waste Management Branch, Air
and Hazardous Materials Division, EPA - Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln
Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, 303/837-2226 for additional inform-
ation on Federal waste management guidelines and the review procedure
for permits to dispose of solid wastes on Federal lands.
24
-------
Table 4
State Solid Waste Management Agencies
in EPA, Region VIII
SOUTH DAKOTA
COLORADO
Orville F. Stoddard, P.E.,
Solid Waste Management
Project Engineering
State Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/338-6111 Ext. 323
MONTANA
Terence D. Carmody, Chief
Solid Waste Management Bureau
Montana State Department of
Health & Environmental Sciences
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-2821
NORTH DAKOTA
Raymond Rolshoven, Assistant Director
Division of Water Supply &
Population Control
State Department of Health
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2386
Roger Stead, Chief
Air Quality & Solid Waste Programs
South Dakota Department of
Environmental Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
UTAH
Dr. Dale Parker, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Utah State Division of Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/328-6163
WYOMING
Charles Porter, Solid Waste
Programs Supervisor
Wyoming Department of Environ-
mental Quality
State Office Building West
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307/777-7391
25
-------
THE CLEAN AIR ACT
The Clean A1r Act as amended by Congress 1n 1970 and 1974
charged the states and the Environmental Protection Agency with
the responsibilities of controlling and preventing air pollution
so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive
capacity of the Nation's population. Provisions of the Act In-
clude the following:
- the establishment of National Ambient Air
Quality Standards to protect public health
and welfare;
- the establishment of criteria for the devel-
opment of State Implementation Plans to achieve
the National Standards;
- the establishment of emission standards for new
stationary sources and for sources of hazardous
air pollutants;
- the establishment of emission standards for mobile
sources;
- the establishment and operation of procedures and
systems to monitor, compile, and analyze data on
ambient air quality and emissions; and
- the establishment of measures outlining Federal
enforcement capabilities.
Following the signing of the Clean Air Act amendments by the Pres-
ident on December 31, 1970, the States and EPA expended considerable
effort to develop and implement the State Implementation Plans.
These plans were submitted by the States and approved by EPA in 1972.
Subsequent court decisions, however, have required EPA to reconsider
Its decisions and to disapprove those portions of the State Plans Con-
cerned with the maintenance of standards and significant deterioration
of air quality. As a result of the court decisions, EPA and the States
are now required, 1n addition to the original requirements involving
the attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, to ensure
the maintenance of these standards once they are achieved and to pre-
vent the significant deterioration of air quality levels 1n areas
having air quality cleaner than required by standards. These re-
quirements as discussed 1n the following paragraphs, and the State
plans are published 1n the Federal Register 40CFR Parts 51 and 52.
26
-------
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The States and EPA are required to prevent the significant
deterioration of air quality 1n areas where the air is already clean-
er than required by Federal standards. The regulations provide for
a threefold classification plan to be put into effect by the States,
subject to EPA review. The regulations require public participation
1n determining which areas will maintain pristine air quality (Class
I) and which areas will be subject to planned development that does
not cause deterioration of air quality below the national air quality
standards (Class III). For those areas not under State jurisdiction,
such as Federal lands and some Indian lands, reclassifications are to
be performed by the Federal land manager and Indian governing bodies,
respectively, and are subject to EPA requirements and review. In no
case will an area's air quality be allowed to exceed Federal primary
and secondary standards which protect public health and welfare. At
present, all areas have been initially designated to allow for mode-
rate changes 1n air quality resulting from well controlled growth
(Class II).
These regulations also include a requirement for a preconstruc-
tion review of new or expanded facilities for 18 types of industries
(see 40CFR Part 52.21). The review will apply to facilities whose
construction or modification begins after June 1, 1975. This review
1s designed to Insure that emissions from the facilities will not
violate the allowable deterioration increments and that "best avail-
able control technology" 1s employed.
Also discussed 1n the Clean Air Act and Included within the
strategies for State Implementation Plans are emission standards
for new stationary sources. These standards reflect the degree
of emissions limitation achievable through the application of the
best system of emission reduction for sources determined to cause
or contribute to the endangerment of public health and welfare.
EPA has developed requirements for 12 source categories and has
published them in the Federal Register 40CFR Part 60.
Air Quality Maintenance
A1r Quality Maintenance Plans are developed by the states to
assure the maintenance of ambient air quality standards once they
are achieved. These plans will include strategies to control air
pollution in areas designated as air quality maintenance areas
(AQMA's) where population growth or other factors, such as energy
development, will cause standards to be violated by some future
date. The strategies Involve areawide comprehensive planning and
require the assistance of Councils of Governments and local govern-
ing bodies for implementation. There are 23 AQMA's in EPA -Region
VIII at the present time (see figure 2), and many of them coincide
27
-------
with 208 planning areas for water quality planning. (Section 208
planning is explained in the discussion of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500). This correspondence
between 208 planning areas for Water Quality and the AQMA's was de-
liberate and aimed at using a single planning and data base to
Integrate long term air and water quality planning. The timing of
various phases of planning 1n each AQMA will vary according to the
outcome of the Initial analytical phase of the planning process.
The analytical phase began on March 1, 1975, and depending upon the
severity of air quality problems 1n each area, a plan may be completed
as early as mid 1976 or as late as mid 1978. In areas where an AQMA
and a 208 planning area coincide, the AQMA planning schedule will be
based on the 208 planning schedule. Since planning for the AQMA's
1s primarily the responsibility of the states, information on a specific
AQMA may be obtained from the state officials shown in Table 5.
Additional information on the air pollution control requirements
of the Act and the dates of state implementation plans may be obtained
from the state officials listed in Table 5 or the personnel of the
Air Programs Branch, EPA, Region VIII, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver,
Colorado 80203 303/837-3926.
28
-------
no
AQMA'S
VDDQ
-------
AQMA's in REGION VIII
1. Kali spell, Montana
2. Missoula, Montana
3. Helena, Montana
4. Anaconda-Butte, Montana
5. Billings, Montana
6. Montana Coal Resource
7. McLean-Mercer-Oliver, North Dakota
8. Cass, North Dakota
9. Sioux Falls, South Dakota
10. Black Hills, South Dakota
11. Powder River Basin, Wyoming
12. Sweetwater, Wyoming
13. North Central, Utah
14. Salt Lake City, Utah
15. Provo, Utah
16. Southwestern Utah
17. Wayne County, Utah
18. Southeastern Utah
19. Colorado-Utah Interstate
20. District 2, Colorado
21. District 3, Colorado
22. District 4, Colorado
23. District 7, Colorado
30
-------
State
For Air
Table 5
Officials Responsible
Quality in Region VIII
COLORADO
Lane W. Kirkpatrick, Director
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/388-6111
MONTANA
Michael Roach, Chief
Air Quality Bureau
Department of Health &
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-2544
NORTH DAKOTA
Gene A. Christianson
Di rector
Division of Environmental
Engineering
North Dakota State
Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2374
31
SOUTH DAKOTA
Roger Stead, Chief
Air Quality Program
Department of Environmental
Protection
State Office Building #2
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
UTAH
Grant S. Winn, Chief
Air Quality Section
Bureau of Environmental Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/328-6108
WYOMING
Randolph Wood, Administrator
Air Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
State Office Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
307/777-7391
-------
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972
The Noise Control Act of 1972, P.L. 92-574, declares that "1t
1s the policy of the United States to promote an environment for
all Americans that 1s free from noise that jeopardizes their health
or welfare". In keeping with this policy, the Act establishes "means
for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise
control", and directs the Environmental Protection Agency to estab-
lish noise emissions standards for products and provide the public
with technical information and assistance concerning control of
noise emissions.
Although the Act states that the primary responsibility for
noise control rests with state and local governments, there are cer-
tain Federal requirements that may affect the activities of Federal
land managing agencies. These include the requirement that Federal
agencies implement measures to reduce their noise emissions, consult
with EPA before issuing noise control regulations, comply with Fed-
eral noise emissions standards for railroads and motor vehicles,
and satisfy the requirements of state and local noise control laws
and ordinances.
Section 5 of the Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency
to identify major noise sources, determine the effects of noise on
public health and welfare, and publish noise emissions criteria and
information on noise control technology. Section 6 requires EPA to
establish noise emissions standards for manufactured products, and
Section 8 gives EPA the authority to require labels warning pur-
chasers or users of any product that emits noise capable of adversely
affecting public health or welfare. Section 8 also gives EPA au-
thority to require labels Informing purchasers or users of noise
control products of their effectiveness in reducing or controlling
noise. Section 15, which requires EPA to identify and certify low
noise products, encourages Federal agencies to reduce their noise
emissions wherever possible by purchasing materials and equipment
that have been identified as low-noise products.
In order to assure that any noise control regulations issued
by other Federal agencies are consistent with the criteria that EPA
has established, Section 4 of the Act requires that other Federal
agencies must consult with EPA before the proposed noise control
regulations are issued. If the proposed regulations do not, in
the views of EPA, adequately protect public health and welfare,
the burden of proof that they are adequate rests with the agency
proposing them.
Sections 17 and 18 govern noise emissions by railroads and
motor vehicles engaged in Interstate commerce. These sections
require EPA, after consultation with the Department of Transpor-
32
-------
tatlon, to promulgate regulations limiting the noise emissions
from railroads and motor vehicles and the facilities that they
use (see 40CFR Part 202). These regulations apply to both the
lessees or tenants of Federal lands (eg. rail lines to coal mines
on Federal land) and to heavy equipment such as trucks operated by
or for the Federal agencies themselves.
Additional Information on the low noise products lists and
other Federal noise control requirements may be obtained from Mr.
Robert A. Simmons, Supervisor, Region VIII Noise Control Program,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colo-
rado 80203, 303/837-2222.
Under Section 4 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 and Executive
Order 11752, compliance with state and local noise control regu-
lations by Federal agencies is mandatory unless the President de-
termines that 1t 1s In the paramount interests of the United States
to grant an exception. Thus, all Federal agencies must be familiar
with state and local control regulations and comply with their re-
quirements, just as any other person or entity must do so.
State and local governments throughout EPA - Region VIII are
enacting noise control laws and ordinances at a rapid pace. In
1974, for example, 27 communities in the Region had passed compre-
hensive numerically-based ordinances, and 43 others were developing
similar ordinances. Because of the number of communities adopting
noise control measures and the variety of directions from which the
problem of community noise control may be approached, the follow-
ing discussion is limited to some of the features that many of these
ordinances have in common. Local zoning or environmental quality
authorities and appropriate state officials (see Table 6) should
be consulted for detailed information on specific local noise con-
trol requirements.
State and local measures Involve vehicle standards and use zone
standards. The vehicle standards generally consist of a numerical
standard, or level of noise measured at a fixed distance from a
stationary or moving vehicle. Typical vehicle noise limits in EPA
Region VIII are:
Cars, motorcycles, and other vehicles under 10,000 lbs.
GVW 80 dB(A) at 25 ft. or 74 dB(A) at 50 ft.
Trucks and other vehicles which are over 10,000 lbs.
GVW 88 dB(A) at 25 ft. or 82 dB(A) at 50 ft.
In most cases, enforcement of vehicle noise standards emphasizes bring-
ing violators into compliance with noise control requirements instead
of collecting fines.
33
-------
Use zone standards are numerical standards aimed at protecting
residential, commercial, and industrial areas from excessive noise
and preventing conflicts between various land uses. These standards
are more stringent 1n residential areas than in commercial areas,
and the standards for commercial areas are more stringent than those
for industrial areas. Many use zone standards also include require-
ments for lower levels of noise during nighttime hours. For example,
common use zone standards in EPA - Region VIII, limit noise to 55
dB(A) during the daytime and 50 dB(A) at night in residential areas.
The land use Implications of use zone noise control standards
are Important to planners. Applicants for building permits, for
example, may be required to show that the facilities to be built or
remodeled will not exceed the noise standards for the accoustically
nearest existing sensitive area (eg. residential neighborhood) or
the nearest potentially sensitive area (eg. undeveloped land zoned
residential). Since rezonlng areas from one land use category to
another may also result in noise control conflicts, many communities
with noise control ordinances require proposals for zoning changes
to be reviewed by noise control officials 1n order to assure that
future conflicts over noise will not arise as a result of the pro-
posed change in zoning. Noise control measures may also be required
in the location and design of roads and other such facilities.
34
-------
State Environmental
Table 6
Noise Program
NOISE
Administrators
COLORADO
Belmont Evans
Environmental Noise Control Officer
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
303/388-6111 Ext. 245
MONTANA
Larry L. Lloyd
Health Physicist, Radiological
Health Program
Montana State Department
of Health
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
406/449-3454
NORTH DAKOTA
Gene Christianson, Director., Div.
of Env. RH Program
North Dakota State Department
of Health
Capitol Building
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
701/224-2372
SOUTH DAKOTA
Dr. Allyn 0. Lockner, Secretary
Department of Environmental
Protection
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
605/224-3351
UTAH
Dennis Dal ley
Chief, Rad/Noise & Occu.
Health Section
Utah Division of Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
801/328-6121
WYOMING
(No State Program)
35
-------
Appendix I
Section 208 Areawlde Planning Programs 1n EPA Region VIII
Colorado
The 208 study areas 1n Colorado are listed 1n Table A-l, together
with the name and address of a person to contact for detailed Informa-
tion on each plan. The Colorado West 208 1s Colorado's only energy
Impact 208 area, the Northwest Colorado 208 1s a preservation/recreation
area, and the other four study areas are standard metropolitan statistical
area (SMSA) 208's. The 208 agency has three years from the date Its
designation was approved by EPA Headquarters 1n Washington, D.C. to
produce a completed areawlde wastewater management plan.
Montana
The 208 Study areas 1n Montana are listed 1n Table A-2, together
with the name and address of a person to contact for detailed Information
on each plan. Both the Yellowstone-Tongue and the Middle Yellowstone 208's
will focus on water quality problems of energy Impacted areas, while
preservation of water quality will be addressed 1n the Gallatin Valley
and Flathead Drainage 208 plans. The 208 agency has three years from the
date Its designation was approved by EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
to produce a completed areawlde wastewater management plan.
North Dakota
The Northcentral North Dakota 208 Study, North Dakota's only 208
plan will address the water quality problems of an area Impacted by
energy development. The 208 planning agency designation was approved
by EPA Headquarters 1n Washington, D.C. on May 22, 1975, and the agency
has three years to produce a completed areawlde wastewater management plan.
Detailed Information about the Northcentral North Dakota 208 plan may be
obtained from Mr. Ed Wesloskl, 208 Study Director; Lewis & Clark Resource
Planning & Development Council; Box 236; Mandan, North Dakota 58554;
701/663-6587.
South Dakota
The 208 Study areas 1n South Dakota are listed in Table A-3, together
with the name and address of a person to contact for additional information
on each plan. The Black Hills 208 area is a preservation/recreation
planning area and the Sioux Falls 208 area is a standard metropolitan
statistical area (SMSA) planning area. The 208 agency has three years
from the date Its designation was approved by EPA headquarters in
Washington, D.C. to produce a completed areawlde wastewater management plan.
36
-------
Utah
The 208 Study areas in Utah are listed in Table A-4, together
with the name and address of a person to contact for detailed informa-
tion on each plan. Three of Utah's 208 plans will focus in the Water
Quality Problems of areas Impacted by energy development: The South-
eastern Utah 208, the Uintah Basin 208, and the Five County 208. The
remaining 208 studies will address the water quality problems of urban-
industrial complexes. Each 208 agency has three years from the date its
designation was approved by EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. to
produce a completed areawlde wastewater management plan.
Wyomlng
The 208 study areas 1n Wyoming are listed in Table A-5 together with
the name & address of a person to contact for detailed information on
each plan. Two of the plans, the Powder River and Green River plans, will
focus on the water quality problems of areas impacted by energy develop-
ment, and the third, Teton County, will address the problem of preserving
water quality in a popular recreation area. The 208 agency has three
years from the date its designation was approved in EPA Headquarters in
Washington, D.C. to produce a completed areawide wastewater management plan.
37
-------
Table A-l Sec*:or, 2C3
AREA'
PLANNING AGENCY
3. Colorado West
Colorado West Council
of Governments
9. Denver
>0. Pueblo
Denver Regional Counci
of Governments
Pueblo Area Council
of Governments
*Numbers correspond to those on the map in Figure 1.
i
g Activities in Colorado
STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER ! -
RESPONSIBLE C-F-ICIAL j APPROVAL DATE
Jack Sparks, Interim Program! 4-24-75
Manager ' !
Joel Webster, EPA Liaison
CWACOG i
P. 0. Box 351
Rifle, Colorado 81650
303/625-1723 j
Mr. Michael Smith, 208 Pro- | 10-8-74
gram Director '
Denver Regional Council ;
of Governments
1776 S. Jackson Street i
Denver, Colorado 80210
303/758-5166
Mr. Gene Fisher, 208 Program. 9-18-74
Di rector
Pueblo Area Council of
Governments
1 City Hall Place
Pueblo, Colorado 81003
303/543-6006 '
-------
Table A-l Section 20S Planni
.AREA"
PLANNING AGENO
11. Colorado Spri ngs
Pikes Peak Area Council
of Governments
CjO
20. Weld-Larimer
Counties
Larimer-Weld Council
of Governments
21. Northwest Colorado Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments
*Numbers correspond to those on the map in Figure 1
g Activities in Colorado (con't)
STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER !¦
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL < APPRCV.-'L DATE
Mr. Roland Gow, 208 | 6-1-74
Program Director i
Pikes Peak Area Council 1
of Governments
27 East Vermijo
Colorado Springs, Colorado ¦
80903
303/471-7080
Mr. E. Eidness, 208 Program. 5-14-75
Director :
Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments
201 E. 4th St. Room 201
Loveland, Colorado 80437
303/667-3288
Mr. Gordon Butcher, 208 5-14-75
Program Director
Northwest Colorado COG
P. 0. Box 737 'f
Frisco, Colorado 80443
303/468-5445 j
-------
Table A-2 Section 203 Plannir;
3 Activities in Montana
AREA*
1
PLANNING AGENCY !
i
STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL j
APPROVAL DATE
Yellowstone-Tongue
Yellowstone-Tongue Area i
Planning Organization i
'
i
!
1
i
i
•
¦
I
Mr. Clark Judy, 208 Project !
Director <
P.O. Box 503
Broadus, Montana 59317 !
406/436-2802 ;
or
Allen Rowland
President, Northern
Cheyenne Tribal Council
Lare Deer, Montana 59043
406/477-6240 1
4-8-75
Middle Yellowstone
(Billings)
Middle Yellowstone Area
Planning Organization
t
t
i
i
! !
i i
: i
Mr. Allen Bond, 208 Project
Di rector
3300 2nd Avenue North
Suite 200 ;
Billings, Montana 59101
406/245-6619
or
Danny Old Elk
Crow Agency
Crow Agency, Montana 59022
406/638-2636
4-2-75
*Numbers correspond to those on map in Figure 1.
i
i
i
-------
Table ^"2 Section 208 Planning Activities in Montana (con't)
AREA*
PLANNING AGENCY
1 STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER
| RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL i
: 1
APPROVAL DATE
16.
Flathead Drainage
Flathead Drainage 208
Project
| i
] Mr. Pete Vance j
i Project Director
; Box 1031
M & M Bu i 1 d i ng !
Kali spell, Montana 59901 i
; 406/755-8420 ;
4-2-75
or ;
1 !
Larry Hall
| 701 Planning Office !
Confederated Salish and ;
Kootenai Tribes
Ronan, Montana 59102
, 406/676-0391
22.
Gallatin County
»
Blue Ribbons of the Big
Sky County Area Planning
Organization
1 Walter Sales, Chairman .
; Blue Ribbons of the Big i
; Sky Country APO
! Gallatin County Courthouse ;
Bozeman, Montana 59715
406/581-7314 j
6-5-75
(
i [
*Number correspond to those on map in Figure 1
-------
Table A-3 Section 208 Planning Activities in South Dakota
AREA*
PLANNING AGENCY
i i
I STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER i
1 RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL i
APPROVAL DATE
4.
B1ack Hi 11s
6th District Council of
Local Governments
! i
j Mr. Lyle Randen, 208 Study j
Director i
\ 6th District Council of
Local Governments '
¦' P. 0. Box 1586
f Rapid City, South Dakota
¦ 57701
605/342-8241
5-19-75
15.
Sioux Falls
Southeastern Council
of Governments
i |
j Mr. Gary Simon, 208 Study
Director '
Southeastern Council of
Governments i
208 East 13th Street
* Sioux Falls, South Dakota
i 57105
5/27/75
*Number correspond to those on map in Figure 1.
-------
TableA-4 Section 20S Planning Activities in Utah
AREA*
D! AV M T%ir:
. L .H i *»t x 11' J n •— ¦ i w I
| STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER I
j RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL i
! l
APPROVAL DATE
5. Southeastern
Utah
Southeastern Utah Assoc.
of Governments
1
; t
! Dr. Courtney Brewer j
| 208 Project Manager
: 208 Water Quality Planning
, 143 South Main
Helper, Utah 84720
| 801/472-3403
4/17/75
6. Uintah Basin
Unitah Basin Association
of Governments
i John Dill
| 208 Project Manager
| Uintah Basin Association of !
Governments i
P. 0. Box 867
26 West Second North
Roosevelt, Utah 84066
! 801/722-4518
1/10/75
12. Salt Lake County
Salt Lake County Council
of Governments
Dr. David Eckhoff, Project
! Manager
Salt Lake County Council of ¦
¦ Governments - ¦
County Complex
¦ Building #1, Room 214 ;
' 2033 South State Street ]
Salt Lake, Utah i
• 801/328-7461
3/6/75
*Number correspond to those on the map in figure 1.
-------
Table A-4 Section 208 Plann
AREA*
PLANNING AGENCY
13. Provo
Mountainland Association
of Governments
-P*
14. Weber & Davis
Counties
Weber River Water Quality
Planning Council
17. Southwestern
Utah
Five County Association
of Governments
*Number correspond to those on the map in figure 1.
]
}
g Activities in Utah fcon't)
STUDY DIRECTOR OR OTHER ¦
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL ! APPROVAL DATE
Mr. George Scott, 208 Study! 1/21/75
Director
Mountailand Association
of Governments |
160 East Center Street
Provo, Utah 84601
801/377-2262
Mr. Graham F. Shirra, 208 : 4/2/75
Administration
Weber River Water Quality
Planning Council
714 Municipal Building
Ogden, Utah 84401
801/399-8401
Mr. Melvin T. Bowler, 5/14/75
Chairman
Five County Association
of Governments :
P. 0. Box 261
Cedar City, Utah 84720 ;
801/586-4842 j
1
i
-------
TableA-5 Section 2GS
AREA*
PLANNING age::cy
7. Powder River
Ba s i n
Powder River Areawide
Planning Organization
8. Green River
Basin
Southwestern Wyoming
Water Quality Planning
Association
23. Teton County
Teton County Section
208 Planning Agency
*Number correspond to those on map in Figure 1.
Mr. Dick Shelton, 208
Study Director
Powder River Areawide
Planning Organization
P. 0. Box 204
Buffalo, Wyoming 82834
307/684-7648
Mr. Robert Schuetz, 208
Study Director
Southwestern Wyoming
Water Quality Planning
Association
P. 0. Box 389
Kemmerer, Wyoming 83101
307/789-3897
Dr. Eugene P. Zeited
208 Study Director
Teton County Section 208
Planning Agency
P. 0. Box 1727
Jackson, Wyoming 83001
307/733-4430
-------
Appendix II
Section 303(e) Basin Planning in EPA Region VIII
Colorado
Basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) have been completed or
are 1n the final stages of preparation for the 11 major basins in
Colorado. Copies of the plans and other information on state water
quality planning may be obtained from the Director of the Water Quality
Control Division, Colorado Department of Health, 4210 East 11th Avenue,
Denver, Colorado 80202, 303/388-6111 Ext. 231.
Montana
Basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) have been completed or
are in the final stages of preparation for the 16 major basins in
Montana. Copies of the plans and other information on state water
quality planning may be obtained from the Chief, Water Quality Bureau,
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Board of Health
Building, Helena, Montana 59601, 406/449-2406.
North Dakota
Basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) have been completed for
the three major river basins 1n North Dakota. Copies of the plans and
other Information on North Dakota's water quality programs may be obtained
from the Director of the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
North Dakota State Department of Health, State Capitol, Bismarck, North
Dakota 58501, 701/224-2386.
South Dakota
The status of basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) of the Act
is shown in Table A-6. Information on these plans and other aspects of
South Dakota's water quality programs may be obtained from the Chief,
Water Quality Control Program, Department of Environmental Protection,
State Office Building #2, Pierre, South Dakota 57501 605/224-3351.
Utah
The status of basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) of the Act
is shown in Table A-7. Copies of completed plans and information on
other aspects of Utah's water quality programs may be obtained from the
Chief, Water Quality Section, Bureau of Environmental Health, 44 Medical
Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84113, 801/328-6146.
46
-------
Wyoml ng
The status of basin plans prepared under Section 303(e) of the
Act 1s shown in Table A-8. Copies of completed plans and information
on other aspects of Wyoming's water quality programs may be obtained
from the Administrator, Water Quality Division, Department of Environ-
mental Quality, State Office Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002,
307/777-7391.
47
-------
Table A-6 South Dakota 303(e) Basin Plan Schedule
Basi n
Cheyenne
Vermillion
Red River
Little Minnesota
James
Big Sioux
Little Missouri
Niobrara
Central Missouri
Final
Draft
3/31/75
4/30/75
5/31/75
5/31/75
7/31/75
6/30/75
11/30/75
12/31/75
2/28/76
Public
Hearing
5/31/75
6/30/75
7/31/75
7/31/75
9/30/75
8/31/75
1/31/76
2/28/76
4/30/76
Governor's
Approval
6/30/75
7/31/75
8/31/75
8/31/75
10/31/75
9/30/75
2/28/76
3/31/76
5/31/76
EPA
Approval
6/30/75
8/31/75
9/30/75
9/30/75
11/30/75
10/31/75
3/31/76
4/30/76
6/30/76
48
-------
Table A-7 Utah 303(e) Bas
in Planning Schedule
Basin
Final Draft
Public Hearing
Certification
EPA
Approval
1.
Jordan
3/1/75
10/7/74
5/1/75
2/1/75
2.
Weber
2/1/75
4/1/75
5/1/75
6/1/75
3.
Sevier
3/1/75
5/1/75
6/1/75
7/1/75
4.
Bear
3/1/75
5/1/75
6/1/75
7/1/75
5.
Virgi n
3/1/75
5/1/75
6/1/75
7/1/75
6.
Colorado
2/15/75
5/1/75
6/1/75
7/1/75
7.
Great Basin
5/1/75
6/1/75
6/30/75
7/31/75
49
-------
Table A-8 Wyoming 303(e) Basin Plan Schedule
Basin
Platte E.
Black Hills
N.E. Wyoming E.
Powder
Bighorn
Green E.
Snake
Bear
Governor's
Final Draft Public Meeting Certification EPA Approval
3/15/75
3/1/75
3/1/75
7/1/75
7/1/75
8/15/75
8/15/75
6/1/75
3/30/75
3/30/75
9/15/75
9/15/75
8/15/75
8/15/75
6/20/75
4/7/75
4/7/75
9/30/75
9/30/75
11/1/75
11/1/75
6/30/75
4/15/75
4/15/75
10/15/75
10/15/75
11/15/75
11/15/75
50
------- |