HomeMy WebLinkAbout750611.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: INDICATING INTENT TO JOIN WITH OTHER GENERAL PURPOSE
UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE LARIMER-WELD
REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AREA TO DEVELOP
AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN RESULTING IN A COORDINATED
WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE AREA.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, P. L. 92-500 (hereinafter called "the
Act"), the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has by regulation published guidelines for the identification of those
areas which, as a result of urban-industrial concentrations or other factors,
have substantial water quality control problems (40 CFR Part 126); and
WHEREAS, the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments
area (hereinafter called "the Area") satisfies the criteria contained in the
Act and guidelines, and designation of the area pursuant to Section 208 and
those guidelines is desirable; and
WHEREAS, Section 126. 10 of the guidelines requires, among other
things, that the affected general purpose units of local government within
the problem area must show their intent, through formally adopted reso-
lutions, to join together in the planning process to develop and implement a
plan which will result in a coordinated waste treatment management system
for the area; and
WHEREAS, such planning process and waste treatment management
system is a necessary and significant measure to control present point and
non-point sources of water pollution and to guide and regulate future develop-
ment and growth in the area which may affect water quality, in order to
prevent, abate and solve existing and potential substantial water quality
control problems;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the County of Weld,
recognizing that the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments area
has substantial water quality control problems, supports designation of the
Area pursuant to Section 208 and the EPA guidelines.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Weld intends to join
with other affected general purpose units of local government within the
boundaries of the area to develop and implement a plan which will result in
a coordinated waste treatment management system for the area.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that all proposals for grants for con-
struction of publicly owned treatment works within the boundaries of the
designated area will be consistent with the approved plan and will be made
only by the designated management agency.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and
-3 750611
seconded, adopted by the following vote on the -4 day of March ,
A.D. , 1975.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
� i ,
irrH e'--1--e4 /
ATTEST: (' ss �4'
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
By ( % ^ L . <.L±- ' i"�l;
Deputy County Clerk i
APPTtOyiD AS TO-FOB-M----__
Lp
County Attorney
-2-
s 0401. w�.e2 i9
LARIMER - WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
PHONE (303) 667-3288
ROOM 201
201 EAST 4th STREET
LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537
January 28 , 1975
The Honorable Glenn K. Billings
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
P. 0. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Commissioner Billings:
The purpose of this letter is to request your local govern-
ment to pass the enclosed resolution indicating intent to join with
other general purpose units of local government in the Larimer-Weld
region to develop and implement a plan resulting in a coordinated
waste treatment management system for the area.
On January 8, 1975, the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments Governing Board voted unanimously to seek designation
of the Larimer-Weld region as eligible for area-wide water quality
(waste treatment) planning (also called "208" planning) . The Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972, declared that
"it is the national policy that areawide waste treatment management
processes be developed and implemented to assure adequate control
of sources of pollutants in each state. " The section of the Act
to implement this policy is Section 208 .
It was also determined by the COG Board to request that the
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments be designated by the
Governor as the "208" planning agency for the region. The Larimer-
Weld COG Board decision on this matter was made after considering
a number of factors , including:
1. The water quality problems in the Larimer-
Weld region are complex and extend beyond the prob-
lems normally solved by municipalities and sanita-
tion districts. These complex problems include non-
point sources (agricultural irrigation return flow,
storm runoff from feed lots and municipalities , etc. )
and ground water quality problems .
2. Area-wide waste treatment management plan-
ning is the only method available to specific regions
for developing plans analyzing the feasibility of
solving complex regional water quality problems.
3. The area-wide planning process addresses
the problems that will be encountered by municipal
and industrial dischargers in meeting the more
stringent water quality requirements of 1983 and
1985. Because previous planning efforts have not
-2-
emphasized these stringent requirements, the area
wide plan will provide a valuable perspective for
local agencies having responsibility to meet the
future requirements.
4. Recent discussions with State Water Qual-
ity Control Division and EPA officials indicate
that the Larimer-Weld region will eventually be sub-
ject to "208" area-wide planning. The "208" planning
will be performed by either the Federal/State Govern-
ments or through the local governments ' own agency--
the Council of Governments. The Board felt the lat-
ter choice was better.
5. Area-wide waste treatment management
planning will deal with potential pollution prob-
lems from sources which are basic to the economy and
life style of the Larimer-Weld region. Planning by
the Council of Governments , rather than the State or
Federal Government, will insure maximum local par-
ticipation in the planning process and considera-
tion of all factors affecting the region.
6 . If the "208" designation is approved
prior to July 30 , 1975, the region will be entitled
to 100 percent federal funding for the planning pro-
cess.
On initial consideration, it was not the intent of the Coun-
cil of Governments to seek designation as a "208" planning agency.
However, as the benefits to local governments in the region emerged
and the ramifications of the Council ' s not overseeing the planning
process became clear, the Council decided that it should seek desig-
nation.
It is the intent of the Council that consultants be used to
develop the plan under the direction of the Council and in close
consultation with municipalities, sanitation districts , and all
other parties and entities possibly affected by the plan. It is
anticipated that only one qualified engineer will be added to the
COG staff, per EPA requirements, to coordinate the work. That
individual ' s salary will be paid out of the grant funds.
A basic requirement for obtaining designation of the Larimer-
Weld COG as a "208" planning agency is support from local governments
by resolution. Without resolutions of support from county boards
of commissioners, city councils and town boards of trustees, the
Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments cannot be designated
as a planning agency. The resolutions of support do not bind the
counties , cities or towns to implement the resulting area-wide
waste treatment management plan. By the resolution, the local
government indicates its intention "to join with other affected
r .
-3-
general purpose units of local government within the boundaries
of the area to develop and implement a plan which will result in
a coordinated waste treatment management system for the area, "
Furthermore, it is not the intention of the Larimer-Weld Regional
Council of Governments to engage in implementation of wastewater
collection and treatment systems. This is a responsibility of local
communities and agencies.
A meeting on "208" planning will be held by the Larimer-
Weld COG Governing Board at 7: 30 p.m. , Wednesday, February 5, 1975,
in the downstairs meeting room of the Northern Colorado Water Con-
servancy District office building, 1250 North Wilson Avenue, Love-
land. Representatives of the EPA will attend to answer your ques-
tions regarding "208" area-wide planning. Enclosed for your con-
venience is a booklet prepared by the National Association of
Regional Councils titled "The Challenge and Opportunity of Water
Quality Management Planning, " which should be a help to you in
answering your questions about "208" planning. If you have any
additional questions , please call Dick MacRavey at the COG office
in Loveland (phone 667-3288) .
The COG Board believes that your support of "208" area-wide
planning will benefit the region. Due to the tight deadlines in-
volved for receiving designation and funding, the earliest possible
consideration by your commission/council/board of the enclosed
resolution will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours<
Glenn K. Billings
Chairman, Larimer-Weld COG
Chairman, Weld County Board
of Commissioners
GKB/cs
Enc.
.' RESOLUTION INDICATI INTENT TO JOIN WITH OTHER ENERAL PURPOSE UNITS
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT iN THE LARIMER-WELD REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
AREA TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN RESULTING IN A COORDINATED WASTE
TREATMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE AREA.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500 (hereinafter called "the
Act" ) , the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency has by regulation published guidelines for the identifi-
cation of those areas which, as a result of urban-industrial concen-
trations or other factors, have substantial water quality control
problems (40 CFR Part 126) ; and
WHEREAS, the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments area
(hereinafter called "the Area" ) satisfies the criteria contained in
the Act and guidelines , and designation of the area pursuant to Sec-
tion 208 and those guidelines is desirable; and
WHEREAS, Section 126 . 10 of the guidelines requires , among other
things, that the affected general purpose units of local government
within the problem area must show their intent, through formally
adopted resolutions, to join together in the planning process to
develop and implement a plan which will result in a coordinated
waste treatment management system for the area; and
WHEREAS, such planning process and waste treatment management
system is a necessary and significant measure to control present point
and non-point sources of water pollution and to guide and regulate
future development and growth in the area which may affect water
quality, in order to prevent , abate and solve existing and potential
substantial water quality control problems;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the (City/Town/County) of
, recognizing that the Larimer-Weld Regional Council
of Governments area has substantial water quality control problems,
supports designation of the Area pursuant to Section 208 and the
EPA guidelines.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the (City/Town/County) of
intends to join with other affected general purpose
units of local government within the boundaries of the area to de-
velop and implement a plan which will result in a coordinated waste
treatment management system for the area.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that all proposals for grants for con-
struction of publicly owned treatment works within the boundaries
of the designated area will be consistent with the approved plan
and will be made only by the designated management agency.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED, this day of
, 1975.
(Name of City/Town/County)
ATTEST: By
Title
the
CHALLENGE
and
OPPORTUNITY
of
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT SECTION 208 OF
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AS AMENDED
August, 1974
err
National Association of Regional Councils
1700 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006
First printing, August 1974
Reprinted with some corrections, September 1974
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purpose and Importance of 208 1
Definition of 208 Management Planning 2
Non-Point Source Pollution and Urban Storm Runoff 3
Funding Situation 3
Geographic Requirements 3
Designation of Urban Industrial Areas vs. Non-Metros 4
Process and Options for Designation 4
Consequences of Not Meeting 1983 Standards 5
Implications for Local Government 5
Benefits of Designation 6
Current Status of Designation 6
Resolution Requirements 7
Degree of State Control 7
Local Appeal Process 8
Land Use Requirements 8
Regulatory System Requirements 8
Implementing Agencies 8
Relationship to 303 Basin Planning 9
Relationship to 201 Facilities Planning 9
Relationship to 402 Permit Program 10
Relationship to Other EPA Programs 10
Relationship to Other Areawide Programs 10
Planning Application Requirements 10
Cost Effectiveness 11
A-95 Review Requirements 12
Environmental Impact Statements 12
Information Needed 12
Appendix I: Glossary 13
Arr-.4L. II. Liot of EPA Appz.r„d-H.,.,:b••••t:,,,— 1�
Appendix III. Chart Outli..:ng 308 Pr00000 1C
*r...Jia IV. Carxp}.. nukes, Mr Elo.t,A Offioialo 17
ArreRdir Vt ?IAR^ Hirt Resolution . . , . . 21
This report was published with
federal financial assistance provided
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
•
THE CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Questions and Answers About Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as Amended
The quality of the nation's water has become an issue of increasing concern for the public and
their federal, state and local officials. Everyone knows that pollution of our water is an omi-
nous threat to our health and welfare which cannot be permitted to continue. At this juncture,
Congress has given the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility to get a handle
on the problem and solve it by 1985. Congress enacted 1972 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act which set water quality standards and provide mechanisms for curbing pol-
lution on a staged basis. The Act established as a national goal the elimination of pollutant dis-
charges into the navigable waters by 1985. It further established an interim goal that by 1983
we would have national water quality which is safe for recreation and which will protect fish and
wildlife. Section 208 of the Act provides local governments with an important tool for reaching
the 1983 goals.
What is the Purpose and Importance of Section 208?
Section 208 of the Act provides for areawide management planning in areas which, as a result
of urban-industrial concentrations and other factors, have substantial water quality control
problems. Through 208, such areas are provided funding to plan and manage a comprehensive
program controlling local government and industrial wastewater, storm and sewer runoff, non-
point source pollutants, and land use as it relates to water quality. Through a cooperatively
controlled areawide planning agency, local governments can select a management plan that is
most cost effective and implementable. Because of the timing, EPA has determined that 208
planning and management should focus on meeting the 1983 goals of the Act.
The purpose of 208 planning simply stated is to provide information for sound decision making.
Management is the key to the process. What makes 208 unique is that state and local govern-
ments must not only develop a plan, but the approved plan must make the commitment to finance
projects developed in the plan and to take regulatory action where necessary to solve non-point
source and other problems related to achieving the 1983 standards.
The implications of 208 for local governments are discussed in detail later in this report. Sev-
eral points should be emphasized at the outset, however.
This report is based on a NARC workshop dealing with the 208 planning process. The workshop
focused on organizing for 208 management planning, the grant application process, and issues
to be tackled this first year. The questions and answers which comprise this report summarize
the basic discussion at that meeting.
1
• It is national policy that 208-type planning must be done in areas where there is a substan •
-
tial water quality problem. The only issue is who will do the planning and make the deci-
sions--the state, local governments, or some special purpose agency.
• 208 planning can be the essential tie between state basin planning (303) and local facilities
planning (201).
• 208 is a mechanism to help local elected officials gain information to deal with other prob-
lems related to water quality, such as solid waste disposal, septic tanks, trailer courts
and land use.
• 208 is one of the only programs available to deal with non-point source pollution problems
(i. e. those for which there is no specifically identifiable source, such as erosion, feedlot
runoff, or runoff from agricultural lands).
• Because areawide planning requirements of the Act will be fulfilled, those local govern-
ments which are involved in 208 will have a better chance at federal construction grants
in the future.
• Through 208, local governments can impact on permits granted by the states for pollution
discharges.
• 208 is the means for making regulatory and implementation decisions. Through this pro-
cess, local officials can work together to develop a management plan which determines
who will do what, when, where and how.
But most important of all, decisions made during the 208 process will have a tremendous im-
pact on land use and other types of issues which are traditionally local prerogatives. If local
governments want to continue to control these decisions, it is essential that they take on 208
responsibility. Further, any delay in undertaking 208 is to the disadvantage of local govern-
ments. Right now 100 percent funding is available, but this will decrease to 75 percent next
fiscal year (FY 76). It is vital to get the 208 process in the works as soon as possible to have
any impact on meeting the 1983 standards. A later section of this report describes some of
the actions which can be taken by EPA or citizens, if appropriate progress is not made.
What is 208 Management Planning?
The purpose of the 208 planning process is to formulate an areawide waste treatment manage-
ment plan that can be implemented by a management agency (ies). The planning process must
integrate both technical needs for pollution control and management arrangements capable of
implementing the controls.
The technical portion of the planning process is concerned with identifying the priority water
quality problems of the area, recognizing any constraints in dealing with the problems, and de-
veloping alternatives to achieve water quality goals.
Management planning is an essential part of the 208 planning process, and should be conducted
concurrently with technical planning. Ultimately, all components of the plan are geared to im-
plementation and dependent upon the development of an effective management plan for their ac-
complishment.
2
Management planning first identifies existing water quality management problems, such as lack
of authority for controlling certain pollution sources as related to areawide waste treatment man-
agement. Any constraints on devising an effective management approach must be identified as
well. Based upon a management analysis, alternative management systems having the potential
for effective water quality management are identified. Finally, such alternatives are analyzed
in terms of their feasibility for implementing a given technical plan. Because the feasibility of
implementing a plan may depend on acquiring proper authority, it is part of the planning function
to ensure that the management agency (ies) has adequate legal authority to implement the plan.
Accordingly, it is imperative that planning agencies consider management problems and alter-
native approaches during the initial phases of the planning process.
Will the 208 Planning Process Require Developing Programs to Deal with Non-point Source
Pollution and Urban Storm Runoff?
Yes. Section 208 is the most positive statement on the need to identify, and if present, devel-
op a program to solve non-point source pollution. This is a difficult problem and the solutions
will not be obvious or easy to correct. This problem will probably require more innovative ap-
proaches than any other aspects of the Act. While EPA will continue to do research and pro-
vide technical assistance to 208 planning agencies, it is recognized that the answer to non-point
source problems must be tailored to the region. Each agency will have to define the parameters
of the problem, and using existing research decide what measures might be financially, techni-
cally and politically feasible.
In the case of urban storm runoff, Section 208 requires this problem to be addressed if it signif-
icantly affects water quality.
What is the Funding Situation for 208?
208 is a contract authority program which is not conditional on the normal appropriations pro-
cess. This means EPA has full authority to use all 208 monies provided in the Act, $100 mil-
lion in FY 74 and $150 million in FY 75. The only constraint on 208 now is receiving applica-
tions that meet EPA criteria.
The funding strategy being followed by EPA is if an application meets EPA criteria--it is a sound
designation that will help solve the water quality problem--then EPA will fund it. There is no
quota or priority system.
The number of applications EPA anticipates is 200 to 350. Cash outlay projections are made
in the President's budget for 208 funding. EPA intends to stay within the target cash outlays if
possible. This target is $26 million in FY 75. The FY 76 amount has not yet been set by OMB.
What is the Geographic Requirement for a 208 Area?
The geographic area in which 208 planning will be conducted is determined by the state using
criteria established by EPA. The criteria are tied to EPA's detailed definition of a substantial
water quality control problem. This definition emphasizes the areas the states have identified
in their 303 basin plans "water quality limited segments" and/or areas having substantial non-
source point pollution.
3
•
Is 208 Limited to Urban Industrial Areas? .
At the moment, EPA is focusing 208 funding in urban industrial areas. In recent months, how-
ever, EPA has been looking at its designation criteria from the point of view of another national
priority--energy development. The Act does not preclude the designation of nonmetro areas for
208 planning, but the emphasis is certainly on the problems in metro areas. But if water quality
problems are substantial and complex in nonmetro areas obviously EPA would give serious con-
sideration to any state proposal to designate such an area. Such areas might include those involv-
ing mines and mining, development of other energy resources, recreational areas, and sites
for waste disposal.
What is the Process for 208 Designation?
The governor of each state, after consultation with appropriate local officials, has the responsi-
bility for designating the boundaries of a 208 area and designating a single representative agency
to be responsible for the 208 planning process. Ultimately on advice of the 208 agency, the gov-
ernor will designate local governments or other agencies to implement the agreed-on manage-
ment plan and program.
The governor actually has three options: he may designate a 208 area, he may non-designate
all or a portion of the state, or he may remain silent. But in the interstate areas he can only
designate or remain silent. This is important because non-designation precludes local initiative.
What if the Governor Non-Designates?
If the governor non-designates he retains the option of reconsidering and perhaps designating
208 areas and agencies at a later time. Or the state assumes responsibility for doing the area-
wide planning under the Act.
There are states which have been very emphatic that they don't want to designate, but these are
few. The majority of states want to make designations, and are either going through the public
hearing process or have questions. Nationwide, there are between 60 and 80 active, viable can-
didates still going through the process right now. That's on top of the 17 designations EPA had
approved through early August.
If a State Non-Designates is it Eligible for 208 Funding?
No. The law requires that areawide "208-type" planning be done in areas with a substantial wa-
ter quality problem, but the states are not eligible for 208 funding. The intent of Congress was
that this be a cooperative state-local effort and 208 funds are provided for that purpose. If the
state non-designates, it assumes responsibility for undertaking areawide planning, but this would
be part of the basic Section 303 state planning process to develop basin plans. Funding for state
planning comes out of Section 106. The funding level for the total state program in FY 74 was
$50 million and EPA does not expect any significant jumps in that level. In fact, OMB wants to
cut it back.
So any funding for states to undertake the 208 planning would come out of their 106 funds. The
states could decide to take their 106 program support funds and put them in planning, or else
come up with the money themselves.
4
•
It should also be noted that if the governor waits to make designations, the state and local offi-
cials are losing 100 percent planning funds. The 100 percent money is only available in FY 74
and FY 75. After that it's a 75:25 match.
What if the Governor Remains Silent?
If the governor remains silent, local governments have the option of applying directly to EPA
for 208 funding as an areawide 208 planning agency. However, if local officials do not exercise
this option and there is a substantial water quality problem, it is the state's responsibility to
see that water quality standards are met.
What Happens if Water Quality Standards are not Met?
If EPA finds that states are not moving to either designate 208 agencies or undertake areawide
planning themselves in areas which have a substantial water quality problem, there are a num-
ber of consequences which could result.
No federal hardware grants will be made unless there is a viable plan and program to achieve
standards and progress made toward implementing such a plan and program. If no significant
progress is made then discharge permits will not be issued or renewed. In addition, EPA or cit-
izens could go to court to require the state or federal government to see that treatment facilities
are built or development moratoriums imposed, or both, until state and local governments as-
sume their responsibilities to do the job.
Has EPA Made This Clear to State and Local Officials?
There definitely appear to be misconceptions at the local level as to the stakes involved here.
An EPA representative stated "At EPA we're not following the implementation of 208 at this point
in time from the point of view if you don't perform this, there's going to be a sanction against
you. We've established a mechanism, a process and we're saying there will be financial assis-
tance for 208 planning and we think if you go through this process, you will solve your problem.
We're basically relying on two things: (1) the fact that a local-regional area identifies that they
have a water quality problem and they want to solve it--the only way 208 can work is if you have
that kind of intent and willingness to solve the problem and work together; and (2) there is mon-
ey available to help do that. "
Are There Also Institutional Implications for Local Government?
Very definitely. The 208 program is geared to moving policies and plans into some concrete
action by staging facilities development, determining how they're going to be financed, who's
going to do it, and making commitments of that nature. It's really implementation of the kind
of things often developed at the regional level which are put on a shelf. The program directly
determines who makes water quality decisions (which affect growth and land use) and who im-
plements the decisions.
So 208 does have an institutional consequence to the whole idea of local governments working to-
gether to solve areawide problems. Local governments need to recognize that the best way to
control their own destiny and remain viable is to work together. This process is going to be one
of the tests to see if that concept will work.
5
•
Local governments have taken a rather ambivalent stand on 208 thus far. They find the state_
has no particular desire to get involved and they don't see the consequences of their not being
involved either, even though they might be in an area which obviously cannot meet water quality
standards with the type of 201 facility design and engineering provided for under the 1972 Water
Pollution Act.
Then it Really Benefits Both the State and Local Governments if the Governor Designates
208 Agencies?
Very definitely. If the state does not designate, it will bear the burden of performing areawide
planning without the advantage of 208 funding. And local governments will find that the state is
in the position of making significant decisions affecting the growth and development of their com-
munity. These water quality decisions determine a community's land use, waste treatment and
sewer facility requirements, as well as future financial resources and capital improvement costs.
How Can this Information Be Communicated to Local Officials?
The Triangle J Council of Governments in the Raleigh-Durham area of North Carolina put toge-
ther a successful package of materials for their local officials. This included a two or three-
page summary of what 208 was all about and a copy of the resolution which needed to be adopted.
(See appendix. ) All materials from EPA were omitted.
One important point made at the meeting is that the entire area of water pollution is very techni-
cal and one that has not evoked a great deal of interest by elected officials. In submitting re-
ports to elected officials, it was felt important to point out the issues and options in nontechni-
cal terms.
The big question asked by elected officials appears to be, "Is 208 required?" The answer should
be that it is not required, but here are the options if you don't do 208 planning and the implica-
tions of each option.
It is national policy that waste treatment management will be on an areawide basis. The plan-
ning will be done either by the state or the locals, and in non-designated areas it will be done
by the state, or even the federal government if the state doesn't do the job.
What is-the Current Status of 208 Designation?
As of August 7, EPA has approved 17 208 agencies designated by the governors. As of July 15,
18 states had made one or more designations and EPA review of these designations is in process.
Thirty-one states had non-designated but most of them have indicated that the governor will make
designations at a future date. Only one governor (New Hampshire) chose to remain silent.
As previously indicated, there are still about 80 viable candidates going through the designation
process right now.
Relative to regulations, EPA has published 208 area and agency designation publications, pro-
gram and grant requirements, and draft planning guidelines.
6
•
What is the Resolution Requirement?
When the governor submits his 208 designations to EPA, this notification must be accompanied
by formally-adopted resolutions which demonstrate that the general purpose local governments
involved will join together to develop and implement a plan which will result in a coordinated
waste treatment management system for the area.
Specifically, the resolution must meet three criteria:
(1) It must come from an affected unit of local government.
(2) It must discuss and state explicitly a willingness to join with other units of government
in the region to do a 208 study.
(3) It must state a willingness and knowledge that hardware grants will go only to management
agencies designated by the completed plan and approved by the governor.
How Many Units of Government in the Region Must Adopt such Resolutions?
Initially, EPA required that "all" units of government in the region had to adopt resolutions of
intent, but this requirement has been relaxed. The fundamental criteria now is that resolutions
be adopted by all governmental units needed to make the 208 plan work. If the exclusion of a unit
of government would jeopardize the effectiveness of the 208 agency, then EPA would not approve
the designation. The initial judgment on the adequate number of resolutions will be made by the
state in its recommendation to EPA.
Are Special Purpose Districts Included in this Requirement?
If a special purpose unit of government in one way or another could determine the success or
failure or significantly impact on the 208 plan, it would be required to pass a resolution. The
real test is a pragmatic one--how important is that special purpose unit to the actual success of
this plan? That has to be interpreted in light of each particular situation.
Would an Interlocal Agreement that Established a Regional Council Suffice to Meet EPA Criteria?
No. EPA wants a separate resolution dealing with this specific issue. The intent is for local
governments to have a full understanding of what they are committing themselves to, especially
with relationship to the agreements that will be necessary for regulation and possible questions
of land use controls that will come out of the planning process. EPA wants this fully understood
before they make a substantial monetary commitment.
How Much Control Does the State Have over 208 Planning?
To begin with, the state is integrally involved in the 208 area and agency designation process,
simply because the governor makes the designation. Second, once the designation is made, the
state is involved in the review of 208 grant application and finally the approval and certification
of the plan on an annual basis. Therefore, the state has the final sign off on the 208 plan.
The state also is responsible for establishing the local water quality objectives consistent with
the appropriate 303(e) basin management plan and the 1983 goals. The state should maintain
continual involvement throughout the planning process to assure that the plan outputs are con-
sistent with state program objectives including permits and construction grants.
7
•
If the 208 agency submits a plan to the state and the state disapproves because it is not compat-
ible with the state basin plan, the 208 agency is required to change it and comply with the state
provisions.
The Act and EPA's regulations are designed to ensure consistency between the 208 plan and the
permit and construction grant programs.
Can a Local Area Appeal to EPA?
Yes. If the 208 agency feels the state decision is either unreasonable or impractical the EPA
administrator, or EPA regional administrator, can require the state to make alterations.
What are the Land Use Requirements for Conducting 208 Planning?
Section 208(b)(2)(F-H) uses the term "land use requirements. " In essence, EPA has indicated
that the 208 planning must relate to areawide and local land use policies and plans. However,
there is no mandatory requirement that existing land use plans must be changed. Rather, it is
recognized that the implication of these existing plans must be evaluated as to their relationship
to achieving the water quality standards required under the Act. If existing land use plans will
not interfere with the achievement of these standards, there is no requirement to alter such plans
and they may be used as the basis for such planning. Local governments would only be required
to reassess their land use policies if it is found that water quality standards under the Act could
not be achieved under existing land use policies and practices. And in that event, it would be up
to the local governments affected to develop an alternative that would best meet their needs.
EPA stresses the need for meaningful land use plans throughout the area to define growth pat-
terns and, in turn, provide the basis for the hardware designs and a regulatory program.
What Kind of Regulatory System Does this Envision and Who Will Implement It?
Section 208(b)(2)(c) makes provision for the establishment of a regulatory program to ensure
that the management plan and program is implemented. Regulatory controls may vary from area
to area due to state law and other factors. In most cases, this involves the use of existing local
and state regulation processes. However, augmentation may be necessary to ensure the water
quality plan is then taken into consideration, in such cases as the issuance of building permits or
administration of subdivision regulations by local governments.
In some cases indirect control, such as those over pricing policies, which would constrain water
use may be applied. It is important to state, however, that the regulatory program can be im-
plemented by the state, general purpose local governments and special districts when these
units have in the aggregate the necessary powers to ensure the compliance with the manage-
ment plan. There will be no requirement that the 208 planning agency obtain such powers. If
additional regulatory authority is required, it could be vested in the units that are cooperatively
carrying out the 208 planning. These decisions would result from the management plan and con-
sultation with and decisions by state government.
What is the Relationship between the 208 Planning Agency and the Implementing Agencies under
the 208 Management Plan?
Under the 1972 Act the areawide planning agency recommends to the governor, as a part of its
management plan, the agencies and local governments that will implement the management plan.
In all likelihood these will be existing operating agencies of local governments or special dis-
8
' tricts. But consideration can be given to developing a single operating agency if the local gov-
ernments so desire.
In his designation to EPA, the governor must consider the 208 planning agency's recommendations
for implementing agencies to carry out the management plan. Only those implementing agencies
finally designated by the governor can receive 201 hardware facility grants. Facilities provided
for through the grant must be consistent with 208 management plans.
Besides delineating implementing agencies for construction and operation of water treatment facil-
ities, the management plan must also contain a regulatory system to assure adherence. This
regulatory system will require definition of regulatory measures as well as agencies responsible
for enforcing such measures. In almost all cases 208-designated planning agencies do not have
the regulatory authority necessary to carry out a regulatory program. Therefore, local govern-
ments and the state will have to accomplish the regulatory measures.
What is the Relationship between 208 Planning and 303 Basin Planning?
303(e) basin plans are prepared by the state and constitute the overall framework within which
208 plans are developed for specific portions of a:baster. Basin plans: (1) provide water quality
standards and goals, (2) define critical water quality conditions, and (3) provide waste load con-
straints. The 208 areawide plan picks up load allocations and target dates defined by the state
in a particular area and attempts to find the most reasonable solution to achieve these goals.
208 plans will be an integral part of the basin plans and must be certified annually by the gover-
nor as being consistent with applicable basin plans.
How Does 208 Relate to 201 Facilities Planning?
201 facilities plans cover the planning and preliminary design portions of plans and studies re-
lated to the actual construction of publicly-owned waste treatment works. Facilities plans,
through the systematic evaluation of alternatives, are intended to assure development of cost-
effective and environmentally sound local waste treatment systems. Thus, in contrast to
208 plans, facilities plans are limited essentially to abatement of pollution from point sources
and those industries served or to be served by waste treatment systems.
Facilities plans may be completed or in progress when the 208 areawide planning is undertaken.
Such planning should be construed as a step toward and supplementary to the more comprehen-
sive 208 plan. Features included in the approved 201 facilities plans such as engineering, cost
data and scheduling should be considered as "existing" for 208 planning purposes. Generally,
other facilities plans and ongoing facilities planning efforts should be reviewed by the 208 agen-
cy, and agreements should be reached between the facilities planning and 208 planning entities
for coordination of the respective efforts. Such coordination should be accomplished with views
toward achieving maximum consistency with the 208 plan without unduly delaying ongoing facili-
ties planning efforts.
In general, no facilities planning should be initiated within a 208 area after 208 planning has been
undertaken and until a 208 plan has been substantially developed. However, in some cases, such
concurrent facilities planning may be justified and approved where urgency of solving a specific
problem dictates the need for a shorter-term and more narrowly focused planning effort.
Upon approval, the 208 plan will serve as portions of the facilities plan for the designated
area. Subsequent applications for grant assistance for municipal treatment works construction
9
•
including detailed design of specific facilities, preparation of plans and specifications, and actual '
construction, will be reviewed for consistency with the 208 plan. Also, subsequent detailed de-
signs of specific facilities for which grant assistance is requested must not duplicate the con-
tents of the 208 plan.
How Does 208 Relate to the National Discharge Elimination System Permit Program (Section 402)?
The 402 permit program is designed to ensure that pollutant discharges do not exceed prescribed
emission standards. A permit system can provide an essential tool for implementing a 208 plan.
No permits may be issued for point sources which are in conflict with approved 208 plans, since
the plans become a part of the overall 303 basin plan. The Section 208 management plan will not
affect the issuance of discharge permits until the plan is certified by the state and approved by
the EPA administrator.
How Does 208 Relate to Other EPA Programs?
If any portion of a 208 area is located within an Air Quality Maintenance Area, 208 efforts should
be coordinated with the air quality planning and implementation process.
During the 208 planning process, the state plans for solid waste management should be examined
for recommended organizational and technological solutions pertaining to the 208 area. Local
agencies within the planning area which are to have the primary responsibility for regulating and
implementing solid waste management controls should be identified. In cooperation with such
local agencies, the mutual effects of these programs should be considered and appropriate mea-
sures taken to assure compatibility.
What is the Relationship between 208 and Other Areawide Programs?
The land use aspects of 208 planning provide a direct linkage with other areawide planning efforts
within the area including those supported under the HUD 701, flood insurance and disaster pro-
grams, transportation plans under DOT, and coastal zone management planning under NOAA.
The 208 planning should be viewed as providing the water quality component of the comprehen-
sive plan for the area. Consideration of other area planning activities will help ensure that their
impact on water quality is incorporated into the 208 planning process and that 208 plans are con-
sistent with these activities. Such consideration will also facilitate the development of a coordi-
native relationship between 208 agencies and related agencies which should be carried over into
the 208 implementation phase. EPA is meeting with HUD, DOT and NOAA to begin integrating
these efforts at the national level and assure proper coordination of these programs with 208
planning at the working level.
What is Required in a 208 Planning Application?
The May 13, 1974 Federal Register contains an outline for preparing a 208 application. Some
basic points to remember include:
• The governor must certify that the application complies with 303 plans that are being de-
veloped and that the program described is adequate to develop a 208 plan. The state must
also certify that the 208 plan will not duplicate work already being done through 201 facili-
ties funding, and that the application is approved by the state water pollution agency.
10
•
♦ • The application must also go through the A-95 process to assure that it is consistent with
other environmental plans, particularly land use.
• There must also be a statement that the planning process will continue after the initial man-
agement plan is developed--i.e. that the plan can be updated annually to ensure implementa-
tion.
• The application should also spell out specifically what agency will be responsible for each
work activity. How will consultants be used, if any? Who will be the members of the 208
staff? Will local government planning staffs be assigned certain tasks? Finally dollars,
resources and work activities should then be correlated, assigned and scheduled!
The point emphasized by EPA is that this must be two-way planning which is not only cost effec-
tive but is politically effective and can be implemented.
A great deal of time in the application process must be spent working with state and local gov-
ernment staffs reviewing the proposals and assuring them of involvement. It is also vital that
before an application is submitted, the means for participation by the various jurisdictions and
interests are spelled out. Continued linkage with the state should be strongly built into the ap-
plication.
EPA regulations require a continuing and meaningful involvement of citizens in the formulation
and annual adoption of the 208 management plan. EPA recommends the use of a citizens com-
mittee in conjunction with a committee of the technicians from the participating jurisdictions.
In addition, smaller advisory committees can be established to represent industry, smaller
communities, etc.
The biggest thing to keep in mind is that the plan must be completed in two years and tight man-
agement control is needed throughout the process. While not a requirement, after a grant offer
has been made, the 208 agency will have to followup with a schedule of work and the dates for com-
pletion of specific tasks. It can help get application through EPA and also help 208 agency if
costs are correlated with tasks and resources.
The regulations allow for essentially 10 basic payments--10 percent at the initiation of the grant
and 10 percent quarterly for the two-year period, 10 percent at completion of the grant. EPA
will be looking to a correlation between these quarterly payments and completion of tasks. The
payments are not automatic.
What about Cost Effectiveness?
A central criterion put forth in the EPA guidelines and the 1972 Act is the cost effectiveness of
the 208 management plan. The costs are divided into four categories: the traditional resource
costs, the social costs, the environmental costs, and the economic costs. These are spelled
out in more detail in the guidelines. The question of effectiveness, is measured by the attain-
ment of the 1983 water quality goals. Two additional criteria are also mentioned in the guide-
lines: implementation capability and public acceptability.
It is very difficult to measure social and environmental costs. There is no simple formula that
you can plug data into and come out with an acceptable level. A process is suggested in the guide-
lines to facilitate the comparison between resource costs and other costs. This should give 208
11
•
agencies and the state and local governments at least one method to evaluate cost effectiveness
of the 208 plan. But the ultimate decision must be based on the available federal, state and local
resources to achieve the 1983 water quality standards established under the Act. These resources
will determine in many cases the degree that a capital intensive solution for achieving water quali-
ty standard is available to an area, and the degree to which other approaches such as pricing pol-
icies (or other non-capital solutions) may have to be used.
How Will the A-95 Review and Comment Process Apply to the 208 Management Planning Program?
The A-95 process has an important role in the 208 planning activities. Under EPA regulations
(Part 35, Subpart F, Section 35. 1054-1) the 208 activities are subject to A-95 review. This in-
cludes the application to fund 208 planning and the plan developed under the 208 management plan-
ning process.
How Should Environmental Impact Statements be Handled in the 208 Planning Process?
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 requires that the Regional Administrator deter-
mine if an environmental impact statement is required for each permit and environmental facility
construction grant, on a case by case basis. If it is decided that an EIS is not required, a nega-
tive declaration must be issued documenting the reasons for that decision. EPA, as of June 1974,
was still formulating its position on environmental impact statements covering the 208 manage-
ment plan.
While EPA recognizes the 1972 Act requires an EIS only on permits and construction grants,
it has been considering the possibility of an EIS for the 208 management plan which would then
preclude individual statements on each permit and construction grant.
What Information on 208 Should We Have?
The first thing you should have is the EPA Water Strategy Paper for FY 74-75. The second is
an EPA brochure on 208--it's mainly a public information brochure which explains the program
and what EPA is trying to do (in process of preparation).
In addition, you should have the regulations for both designation and grant assistance. They are
two separate sets. (Federal Registers May 30, 1973 and May 14, 1974. ) Draft planning guide-
lines (May 1974) are available and the final version will be published by September.
All of these are available from the Water Planning Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
Waterside Mall, 401 "M" Street, S. W. , Washington, D. C. 20460. In addition, EPA's public af-
fairs department has published a bibliography of general information related to the water bill.
A bibliography is also contained in the planning guidelines.
12
•
•
APPENDIX I
•
GLOSSARY
For additional definitions, see EPA's 208 planning guidelines (Draft dated May 1974); final due
in September).
Basin
"The term 'basin' means the streams, rivers and tributaries and the total land and surface wa-
ter area contained in one of the major and minor basins defined by EPA, or other basin unit as
agreed upon by the state(s) and the Regional Administrator. " (proposed regulations 40 CFR
130.2(1)).
Discharge of pollutants
"The term 'discharge of a pollutant' and the term 'discharge of pollutants' each means (A) any
addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollu-
tant to the waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floring craft. " (Act, Sec. 502(12)).
Effluent limited segments
"Any segment 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 wa-
ter quality standards after the application of the effluent limitations required by Sections 301(b)
(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B) of the Act. " (proposed regulations, 40 CFR Part 131).
Facilities planning
Pertains to "provision for cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable treatment
works which will meet applicable requirements of Sections 201(g), 301, and 302 of the Act. "
(201 guidance, p. 3).
Land use controls
Methods for regulating the uses to which a given land area may be put, including such things as
zoning, subdivision regulation, and flood-plain regulation.
Navigable waters
"The term 'navigable waters' means the waters of the United States, including the territorial
seas. " (Act, Sec. 502(7)).
Nonpoint source
Generalized discharge of waste into a water body which cannot be located as to specific source,
as outlined in Section 304(e) of the Act.
Permits
"The Administration may. . .issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination
of pollutants, . . . upon condition that such discharge will meet either all applicable requirements
under Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403 of this Act, or prior to the taking of necessary
implementing actions relating to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator de-
termines necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. (Act, Sec. 402(a)(1)). The Adminis-
trator shall authorize a state, which he determines has the capability of administering a permit
program which will carry out the objective of this Act, to issue permits for discharges into the
13
•
.navigable waters within the jurisdiction of such state. " (Act, Sec. 402(a)(5)). The permit pro-
gram is a part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Planning agency
"The governor. . .or governors shall. . .designate each 208 planning area including its boundaries,
and for each area a single representative agency to be responsible for the planning. . . . The agen-
cy shall be a representative organization whose membership shall include but need not be limited
to elected officials of local governments, or their designees, having jurisdiction in the designated
planning area. " (40 CFR 126. 12, 126. 13, 126. 11).
Planning process
Strategy for directing resources, establishing priorities, scheduling actions, and reporting
programs toward achievement of program objectives.
Point source
"The term 'point source' means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including
but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from
which pollutants are or can be discharged. " (Act, Sec. 502(14)).
State water quality standards
Standards of water quality set by the state for intrastate waters, that shall be at least as strin-
gent as federal standards and shall further the goals of the Act.
Waste load allocation
"A waste load allocation for a segment is the assignment of target loads to point and nonpoint
sources so as to achieve water quality standards in the most effective manner. " (303 guidelines).
Waste treatment facilities
"Any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of munici-
pal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. . . in addition, . . . any other method or system
for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of minicipal waste,
including waste in combined storm water and sanitary sewer systems. " (Act, Sec. 212(2)).
Also termed treatment works.
Water quality limited segments
"Any segment where it is known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality stan-
dards, and is not expected to meet water quality standards even after the application of the efflu-
ent limitations required by Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 301(b)(1)(B) of the Act. " (proposed regula-
tions 40 CFR Part 131).
14
./ �E (c) ,-7 MAR
1975
��. '7TT��, DEPARTMENT
y .� f;;� OF THE ARMY
%
OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
W.� % 6014 U.S. POST OFFICE AND COURT HOUSE
yam_b"^"-£.b ^ OMAHA.
NEBRASKA 68102
1?;OPD-R
25 February 1975
is. Glenn K. Billings, Chairman
Lari:ner-Weld regional Council of Governments
7.00m 201
201 East 4th Street
Loveland, Colorado 80537
Dear :s. Billings:
Your letter of 13 February 1975 to Mr. Thomas requested Corps of Engineers'
support for the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of Governments' efforts
secure a "208" water quality management planning designation.
As stated in the inclosed copy of the agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army, the goal of both agencies
is to enhance the capability of local and State Governments in developing
regional wastewater management Planning processes. We, therefore, support
local initiative that will lead to achieving the National water quality
goals stipulated in Public Law 92-500.
Under the coordinating provisions of the inclosed agreement, there will be
no duplication of funding for the sane specific task in development of a
wastewater management plan or planning process under Title II of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972.
If your Council is funded for "208" planning by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, the water quality component of the Corps of Engineers' study
would be revised to reflect the changed situation. In any event, we will
provide assistance to your Council, within the limits of our authorities,
in resolving your area's water and land resources problems.
S cerely yours,
1 Intl USSELL . .:NJ
As stated Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Cy Furn:
AE, Rocky Mtn Area w incl
Hello