|
CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANSThe San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's overall mission is to protect the beneficial uses supported by the quality of the San Francisco Bay Basin's surface and ground waters. Together, the beneficial uses described in detail in Chapter 2 define the resources, services, and qualities of aquatic ecosystems that are the ultimate goals of protecting and achieving water quality. The objectives presented in Chapter 3 present a framework for determining whether water quality is indeed supporting these beneficial uses. This chapter describes in detail the Regional Board's programs and specific plans of action for meeting those objectives. The descriptions of specific actions to be taken by local public entities and industries to comply with the policies and objectives of this Water Quality Control Plan (Plan) are intended for the guidance of local officials. The Regional Board will consider any proposed alternative actions that are consistent with and achieve the policies and objectives of the Plan. This chapter first describes the watershed management conceptual framework for water quality control in the Region. Next, it presents each of the individual programs that form part of this comprehensive approach. These programs are organized into five categories: (1) surface water protection and management--point source control, (2) surface water protection and management--nonpoint source control, (3) groundwater protection and management, (4) emerging program areas, and (5) continuing planning. Taken together, these programs constitute an integrated, comprehensive water quality control program that is protective, efficient, and flexible. 4.1 THE WATERSHED-MANAGEMENT APPROACHThe watershed approach consists of programs aimed at three different levels:
A major part of the Regional Board's water quality control program focuses on managing the influx of toxic pollutants to the larger San Francisco Bay Estuary aquatic system. The overall goal of these programs is to limit the total amount of pollutants in the entire system to ensure protection of beneficial uses. Regardless of whether the focus is on the whole system or on a single creek, watershed management involves ongoing research, investigation, and monitoring, along with control measures or changes in practice. The next three sections present the conceptual framework around which the Regional Board's water quality programs are structured. 4.1.1 TOXIC POLLUTANT MANAGEMENT IN THE LARGER SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY SYSTEMThe Regional Board's water quality program began nearly three decades ago with a focus on controlling the discharge of point sources of pollution such as municipal sewage and industrial wastewater. Since then, highly effective waste treatment systems have been built, essentially eliminating what had been major water quality problems associated with high nutrient and organic loading. In addition, the overall influx of toxic pollutants from point sources has significantly declined as a result of these efforts. Still, certain toxic pollutants remain a great concern. The focus of efforts to attain water quality goals has shifted accordingly. Further reductions in point source pollutant loadings are being attained through complex, innovative programs often involving numerous public agencies and private organizations. Loading from nonpoint sources, such as urban and agricultural runoff, had until recently, continued largely unchecked. These nonpoint sources are now generally considered to be the largest source of pollutants to aquatic systems. New Board programs aim to reduce this diffuse pollutant loading. 4.1.1.1 NUMERIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES: WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONSThe numerical objectives presented in Chapter 3 define maximum levels of individual pollutants allowed in the waters of the region. These objectives are based on extensive technical information that relates concentrations of pollutants in water to adverse effects on beneficial uses. Assuring that pollutant concentrations throughout the whole Estuary system will meet objectives for each pollutant requires (a) information on the fate, transport, and distribution of that pollutant and (b) quantification of loading from all sources, including riverine inputs, urban and agricultural runoff, and point source discharges. When this information is available, the total amount of each pollutant that can enter the system without exceeding water quality objectives can be calculated. The maximum pollutant load can then be allocated among all sources, a process known as wasteload allocation. By considering pollutant influx from all sources, wasteload allocation supports the identification and implementation of the most effective and economically efficient means of achieving water quality objectives in the larger Estuary system. There are three limitations to this approach. First, there are many pollutants of local concern for which objectives have not been developed and adopted. The objectives for specific toxic pollutants contained in Chapter 3 are reasonable for the purposes of interim regulation because they provide a minimum level of protection in the Estuary; however, additional objectives are necessary to fully implement the wasteload allocation approach. The Regional Board will establish water quality objectives for selected pollutants as the necessary technical information becomes available and a framework for assessing economic factors is developed. Second, the wasteload allocation approach only considers the impact of individual pollutants. Aquatic systems in the region contain mixtures of pollutants in a complex and variable water matrix. Implementation of the toxicity objective described in the following section addresses this issue. Finally, substances that accumulate in sediment or organisms pose a more complicated problem for water quality control. The additional considerations necessary for these pollutants are described below. 4.1.1.2 TOXIC POLLUTANT ACCUMULATION: MASS-BASED STRATEGIESWasteload allocations based on the achievement of numeric water quality objectives will provide appropriate protection of beneficial uses for many toxic pollutants. For some pollutants, however, concentrations in water are not good indicators of their impairment of beneficial uses. Instead, wasteload allocations for such compounds are developed based on mass rather than concentration, and tissue and sediment concentrations. Typically, mass-based allocations require more extensive technical information on the fate and transport of pollutants in the system than those based on water alone. The Regional Board implements the narrative objectives regarding sediment accumulation and bioaccumulation in several ways. These are discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. In general, pollutants are identified and monitored in both discharges and the aquatic system. At a minimum, limits placed on point and nonpoint discharges take pollutant accumulation into consideration. Ultimately, the goal is to develop system-wide, mass-based wasteload allocations for appropriate substances. 4.1.1.3 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH: ONGOING REFINEMENT OF PROGRAMSThe quantity of pollutants in the Estuary system is the result of many complex and interacting factors beyond the total amount discharged day-to-day. Levels of pollutants in water, sediments, and aquatic organisms are regularly assessed through the Regional Monitoring Program and other surveillance described in Chapter 6. In addition, implementation of this Water Quality Control Plan involves research and investigation on processes controlling the fate, transport, and distribution of pollutants. In the past, the Regional Board has supported research on Delta outflow and associated flushing, sediment movement, chemical transformations within the aquatic system, and biological effects associated with existing and projected pollutant levels. Information resulting from ongoing scientific research and regular monitoring within the Estuary is continuously incorporated into each of the programs described in detail later in this chapter. In addition, the Regional Board typically requires technical investigations in situations where water quality problems have been identified but not enough information is available to craft appropriate courses of action. As a result, programs are constantly evolving as better scientific information becomes available. 4.1.1.4 RIVERINE FLOWS, SYSTEM FLUSHING, AND POLLUTANT LOADING4.1.1.4.1 DELTA OUTFLOWIn addition to pollution control measures, achieving water quality objectives and protecting the beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay Estuary system (particularly fish migration and estuarine habitat) are depends on freshwater outflow from the Delta. Adequate freshwater inflow to the Bay system is necessary to control salinity, to provide mixing (particularly in the entrapment zone), to maintain proper temperature, and to flush out residual pollutants that cannot be eliminated by treatment or nonpoint source management. Except for local drainage and wastewater discharges, Delta outflow provides virtually all the freshwater inflow to San Francisco Bay. However, the availability of adequate Delta outflow to meet these needs is very uncertain because of the existing and potential upstream diversions of water and fluctuations in rainfall. The State Board first addressed the issue of the Bay's inflow needs in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh in the Water Rights Decision 1485, issued in August, 1978. In these documents, the State Board established maximum salinity standards (but no corresponding flow standards for the Delta) and required the two major water diverters to conduct research and determine:
In 1993, estuarine scientists and managers associated with the San Francisco Estuary Project recommended development of salinity standards for different parts of the year to be used in conjunction with flow standards. Specifically, they indicate that average upstream positions of the near-bottom 2 0/00 isohaline would be an appropriate index for salinity standards. Technical evidence developed during the Estuary Project process and the State Board Bay/Delta hearings will be used to help formulate future amendments to the Basin Plan. 4.1.1.4.2 SAN LUIS DRAINThe San Luis Drain is a proposed method of funneling agricultural runoff from the San Joaquin Valley into the Delta. Agricultural irrigation in the San Joaquin Valley leads to high salinity concentrations in the soil, which may be harmful to crops. To alleviate this condition, tile drains have been and are being installed to carry the saline water away from the fields. However, there have been adverse environmental effects associated with this wastewater. In 1982, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discovered selenium concentrations in fish from the San Luis Drain and Kesterson Reservoir to be as much as 100 times higher than background. It also found high mortalities and deformities among newborn coots, grebes, stilts, and ducks. There was early concern about the potential for impacts on beneficial uses in the Estuary if the Drain were completed and discharged into the Delta. In response, the Regional Board prohibited the proposed discharge in 1964, unless compelling evidence that the proposed discharge would not harm beneficial uses was submitted by proponents. In 1981, the Regional Board requested that the State Board take the lead role in developing, revising, renewing, and enforcing waste discharge requirements for the Drain. Unfortunately, the problem of agricultural drainage still exists. The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, another state and federal interagency program, has begun to investigate further the problems associated with the drainage of agricultural lands and to develop solutions. 4.1.2 TOXIC POLLUTANT MANAGEMENT IN SEGMENTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY4.1.2.1 LOCAL WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONProtection of aquatic systems in the immediate vicinity of identified discharges is the second component of water quality control in the larger Estuary system. This approach is based on attaining objectives near discharges, and thereby providing a reasonable level of protection for the whole system. Because of the high degree of uncertainty regarding pollutant fate and transport in the larger Estuary system, local wasteload allocation drives many of the Regional Board's current programs. This chapter's sections on point source control describe how this approach is implemented for effluents. 4.1.2.2 EFFLUENT TOXICITY CONTROL PROGRAM: LOCAL TOXICITY OBJECTIVESThe water quality objective for toxicity (see Chapter 3) is designed to protect beneficial uses against mixtures of pollutants typically found in aquatic systems. Toxicity is used because numerical objectives for individual pollutants do not take mixtures into account. The Regional Board implements this objective through its Effluent Toxicity Control Program and by monitoring the toxicity of waters at or near discharge sites. The long-term goal of the Effluent Toxicity Control Program (ETCP) is to develop water quality-based effluent limits using information about the acute and chronic toxicity of each discharge and resulting toxicity in the receiving water. The toxicity approach is identical to meeting numerical water quality objectives near discharges, except that it includes the development of sophisticated toxicity objectives that are specific both to the Bay and characteristics of local discharges. 4.1.2.3 LOCAL TOXIC POLLUTANT ACCUMULATIONSome of the pollutants contained in nonpoint and point source discharge accumulate in sediment and/ or the tissue of aquatic organisms. In many cases, programs based on numerical objectives for individual pollutants and toxicity objectives do not fully consider the accumulation of these pollutants. To address pollutant accumulation, the Regional Board has initiated a program requiring major dischargers to monitor sediment and bioaccumulation near discharge sites. Information from such local-effects monitoring is then assessed in conjunction with data collected by the Regional Monitoring Program (Chapter 6) and other research. The goal of local-effects monitoring is to assure that the narrative objectives regarding pollutant accumulation in sediments and aquatic organisms are met in each segment of the Estuary. 4.1.3 TOXIC POLLUTANT MANAGEMENT IN INDIVIDUAL WATERSHEDSProtection of beneficial uses associated with the larger San Francisco Bay Estuary also depends upon achieving water quality goals within each of the watersheds draining to the Bay. Successful wasteload allocations depend upon limiting pollutant influx from nonpoint as well as point sources. In turn, nonpoint source control is dependent on a wide range of factors, including physical factors such as the geology and hydrological characteristics of an area; existing natural resources such as vegetation along streambanks; and a wide range of human activities. Watershed management planning in each individual watershed involves a series of steps. First, a detailed assessment of current conditions, including identification of existing or potential problems, is conducted. Next, the process attempts to bring together all affected stakeholders and interested parties to determine how they would manage their watershed. Finally, specific actions are taken during implementation of the local plan. The Regional Board firmly believes that watershed planning and protection efforts will not be effective unless solutions are defined and implemented at the local level. The following sections present two examples of local watershed management planning activities supported by the Regional Board. 4.1.3.1 THE NAPA EXAMPLEThe Regional Board has initiated county-level watershed management planning efforts. The first began in Napa County where depressed oxygen levels, high coliform levels, and sedimentation due to erosion were recurring problems in segments of the Napa River. The Regional Board initiated the planning process by preparing a complete resource evaluation in cooperation with a wide range of local public and private entities. This evaluation encompassed traditional evaluations of natural resources and also included descriptions of existing management and regulatory frameworks, funding, and tax incentive programs to support the local planning process. The Regional Board is supporting local agency staff, public officials, agricultural landowners, urban residents of Napa County, and the Napa Resource Conservation District in their efforts to define watershed management goals and specific actions that will eventually allow those goals to be met. The Regional Board will support other county-level watershed management planning in a similar manner. 4.1.3.2 THE CORTE MADERA CREEK EXAMPLEIn 1994, the Regional Board completed a field survey of fisheries, macroinvertebrates, riparian habitat, erosion, land use, point and nonpoint discharges, and water quality in Marin County’s Corte Madera Creek watershed. Combining the field data with existing information on community use of the creek, the Regional Board published a report outlining potential water quality problems and opportunities for enhancement. Citizens, local agency staff, and public officials are using this information to help determine watershed management goals, such as enhancement of the steelhead trout population, and specific actions, such as eliminating discharge of swimming pool water to the creek. The Regional Board is providing continuing support to local residents engaged in this planning process. 4.2 DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE REGIONTo protect water quality of all aquatic systems throughout the region, the discharge prohibitions listed in Table 4-1 apply. The Regional Board will not allow exceptions to these prohibitions, except where noted below. Exceptions to Prohibitions 1, 2, and 3 will be considered where:
In reviewing requests for exceptions, the Regional Board will consider the reliability of the discharger's system in preventing inadequately treated wastewater from being discharged to the receiving water and the environmental consequences of such discharges. Prohibitions 1 through 5 refer to particular characteristics of concern to beneficial uses. The Regional Board may consider an exception to 4 provided that any proposed reclamation project demonstrates that beneficial uses will be protected. This broad language has been and will be interpreted by the Regional Board on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that the Regional Board will consider all discharges of treated sewage and other discharges where the treatment process is subject to upset to contain particular characteristics of concern unless the discharger can demonstrate that the discharge of inadequately treated waste will be reliably prevented. SUMMARYThe detailed program descriptions presented in the remainder of this chapter are focused on protecting water quality in systems ranging from small creeks to the larger Estuary. The section on point source control focuses primarily on protecting beneficial uses in each segment of the Estuary, as well as the whole system. The section on nonpoint source control focuses primarily on individual watersheds, but also on the contributions of runoff to the larger Bay system. The section on groundwater protection and management centers on groundwater basins within each watershed. The section on emerging program areas describes resources and issues that have increasingly become the focus of Regional Board activity. Often, these areas require integrated and innovative approaches that are substantially different than those that exist in established programs. 4.3 SURFACE WATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT — POINT SOURCE CONTROLSurface waters in the region consist of inland surface water (freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams), estuaries, enclosed bays, and ocean waters. Historical and ongoing wasteloads contributed to the surface water bodies in the region come from upstream discharges carried into the region via Delta outflow, direct input in the forms of point and nonpoint sources, and indirect input via groundwater seepage. A point source usually refers to waste emanating from a single, identifiable location, while a nonpoint source usually refers to waste emanating from diffuse locations. While legally considered point sources, stormwater sewer systems are discussed under the nonpoint source control because waste entering the systems is generated from diffuse sources. This section describes control measures for point source discharges. The Regional Board may control either type of discharge, but approaches may differ. 4.3.1 TYPES OF POINT SOURCESWasteloads from point sources are those that are generally associated with pollutant discharges from an identifiable location to a specific receiving water body. Major types of point sources include:
4.3.2 WASTE DISCHARGE PERMITTING PROGRAMPoint source discharges to surface waters are generally controlled through waste discharge requirements issued under the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Although the NPDES program was established by the federal Clean Water Act, the permits are prepared and enforced by the Regional Boards per California's delegated authority for the act. Issued in five-year terms, an NPDES permit usually contains components such as discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and necessary specifications and provisions to ensure proper treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste. The permit often contains a monitoring program that establishes monitoring stations at effluent outfall and receiving waters. Under the state's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste within the region (except discharges into a community sewer system) that could affect the quality of the waters of the state is required to file a Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD). The Regional Board reviews the nature of the proposed discharge and adopts Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to protect the beneficial uses of waters of the state. Waste discharge requirements could be adopted for an individual discharge, or a specific type of discharges in the form of a general permit. The Regional Board may waive the requirements for filing a ROWD or issuing WDRs for a specific discharge where such a waiver is not against the public interest. NPDES requirements may not be waived. Acceptable control measures for point source discharges must ensure compliance with NPDES permit conditions, including the discharge prohibitions (Table 4-1) and the effluent limitations provided on the following pages. In addition, control measures must satisfy water quality objectives set forth in the Basin Plan unless the Regional Board judges that related economic, environmental, or social considerations merit a modification after a public hearing process has been conducted. Control measures employed must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate future changes in technology, population growth, land development, and legal requirements. 4.3.3 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS4.3.3.1 TECHNOLOGY- AND WATER QUALITY-BASED LIMITATIONSThe federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that NPDES permits include technology-based and, where appropriate, water quality-based effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limitations are promulgated performance standards based on secondary treatment or best practicable control technology. When technology-based limitations fail to attain or maintain acceptable water quality (as measured by water quality objectives) or comply with water quality control plans, additional or more stringent effluent limitations will be required in order to attain water quality objectives. The more stringent limitations are known as water quality-based limits. Water quality-based effluent limitations will consist of narrative requirements and, where appropriate, numerical limits for the protection of the most sensitive beneficial uses of the receiving water. Establishing numeric limits takes into account the appropriate water quality objectives, background concentrations in the receiving water, and allowable dilution credit. Descriptions of the calculation are included in the section below titled, "Calculation of Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations." In many cases, numerical water quality objectives are not available for various types of beneficial uses or for various constituents of concern. The U.S. EPA is expected to promulgate final water quality standards for California in late 1995. These standards will then apply to all permitting actions conducted under the federal Clean Water Act. In addition, the State Board is engaged in the development of statewide water quality objectives under Porter-Cologne. Prior to formal adoption or promulgation of applicable water quality objectives or standards, best professional judgement will be used in deriving numerical effluent limitations that will ensure attainment and maintenance of narrative water quality objectives. 4.3.3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESIn some cases, the Regional Board may elect to develop and adopt site-specific water quality objectives. These objectives will be based on reflect site-specific conditions and comply with the Antidegradation Policy. This situation may arise when: · It is determined that promulgated water quality standards or objectives are not protective of beneficial uses; or · Site-specific conditions warrant less stringent effluent limits than those based on promulgated water quality standards or objectives, without compromising the beneficial uses of the receiving water. In the above cases, the Regional Board may consider developing and adopting site-specific water quality objectives for the constituent(s) of concern. These site-specific objectives will be developed to provide the same level of environmental protection as intended by national criteria, but will more accurately reflect local conditions. Such objectives are subject to approval by the State Board, Office of Administrative Law, and U.S. EPA. There may be cases where the promulgated water quality standard or adopted objectives are practically not attainable in the receiving water due to existing high concentrations. In such circumstances, discharges shall not cause impairment of beneficial uses. BEST PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT In developing and setting water quality-based effluent limitations for toxic pollutants, best professional judgement will involve consideration of many factors. Factors that may be considered include: · Applicable and relevant federal laws, regulation, and guidance (specifically 40 CFR122 and 131, promulgated National Toxics Rules, U.S. EPA Water Quality Criteria, and technical guidance on water-quality based toxics control); · State laws, regulations, policies, guidance, and Water Quality Control Plans; · This Regional Water Quality Control Plan; · Achievability by available technology or control strategies; · Effectiveness of pollution prevention and source control measures; and · Economic and social costs and benefits. While the conditions surrounding a waste discharge may vary from case to case, all attempts will be made to ensure consistency among permits when exercising best professional judgement. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS The effluent limitations described below have been established to help achieve the water quality objectives identified in Chapter 3. Numerical effluent limitations identified in this section may not contain a complete list of pollutants that have a reasonable potential to cause an adverse impact on water quality. Inclusion of such pollutants of concern into the NPDES permit will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The Regional Board will consider establishing more stringent limitations as necessary to meet water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses in particularly sensitive areas. Similarly, the Regional Board will consider establishing less stringent limitations, consistent with state and federal laws, for any discharge where it can be conclusively demonstrated through a comprehensive program approved by the Regional Board that such limitations will not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the beneficial uses of the receiving water. Such a comprehensive program must evaluate the impact of other, nearby discharges as well as the discharge itself. The numerical limits identified in this section have been and will be applied on a gross rather than a net basis except for certain industrial waste discharges, which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A. DISCHARGES TO OCEAN WATERS Within the context of this Basin Plan, ocean waters of the region are all territorial marine waters of the state west of the coastline, except enclosed bays. All discharges to ocean waters must comply with the applicable quality requirements for waste discharges specified in the State Board's Ocean Plan and Thermal Plan. B. DISCHARGES TO INLAND SURFACE WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS, AND ESTUARIES Within the context of this plan, enclosed bays are the indentations along the coast that enclose an area of marine water (such as Tomales Bay and Drake's Estero) including San Francisco Bay; estuaries extend from a bay to points upstream where there is no significant mixing or fresh water or sea water (this includes significant portions of the main San Francisco Bay and the portions of streams draining to the Bay where salt and freshwater mix); and inland surface waters are all other waterbodies within the region (freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs). As described in Chapter 3, effluent limits for discharge into any surface water body within the region is based on salinity. These are defined in the State Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Policy, 1974. LIMITATIONS FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS Effluent limitations for conventional pollutants are contained in Table 4-2 for discharges to inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries within the region. LIMITATIONS FOR SELECTED TOXIC POLLUTANTS Effluent limitations for selected toxic pollutants are listed in Table 4-3 for discharges to shallow water and deep water. In order to be classified as a deep water discharge, waste must be discharged through an outfall with a diffuser and must receive a minimum initial dilution of 10:1, with generally much greater dilution. All other discharges are classified as shallow water discharges. [The effluent limitations listed in Table 4-3 were adopted in the 1986 Basin Plan and have subsequently been incorporated into NPDES permits where appropriate. Certain limitations (e.g., copper, mercury and PAHs) are no longer considered to be protective of beneficial uses. However, the Regional Board intends to retain the entire Table 4-3 based on consideration of the anti-backsliding policy.] The Regional Board may adopt additional numerical standards for conservative constituents documented in discharges and/or documented to be of concern in receiving waters. ALTERNATE LIMITS The Regional Board will consider proposals consistent with the State Board's Resolution No. 68-16 and federal antidegradation policy for alternate limits for each of the pollutants in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 where the discharger: (1.a) Demonstrates that all sources of the toxic pollutant are being controlled through application of all reasonable treatment and source control measures. Such proposals must include an assessment of the impact of the alternate effluent limit on the beneficial uses of the receiving water and must include a demonstration that the costs of additional measures do not bear a reasonable relationship to the level of beneficial uses protected by such additional measures; or (1.b) Proposes an alternate effluent limit based on a site-specific water quality objective for that location, addressing three specific aspects of uncertainty: 1) site-specific water chemistry and constituent speciation, 2) background concentration(s) in receiving waters, and 3) differences in sensitivity between local species and species used to develop EPA criteria; and (2) Participates in a program to identify and develop control strategies for nonpoint sources of pollution (urban runoff, agricultural drainage, etc.) within or upstream from that discharger's receiving water segment to reduce uncertainty regarding the discharger's contribution to the total pollutant load. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS AND CONTROL PROGRAM The narrative water quality objective for toxicity (see Chapter 3) protects beneficial uses against mixtures of pollutants typically found in aquatic systems. This approach is used because numerical objectives for individual pollutants do not take mixtures into account and because numerical objectives exist for only a small fraction of potential pollutants of concern. Effluent limits for acute toxicity are described below and were derived through the Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program (ETCP). A detailed description of the ETCP is presented later in this section. These limits define in specific terms how the Regional Board assesses whether waters are "maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms" (the narrative objective in Chapter 3) and maintains waters free of "toxic substances in toxic amounts" (Clean Water Act). ACUTE TOXICITY The acute toxicity effluent limitation states that the survival of organisms in effluent shall be a median value of not less than 90 percent survival, and a 90 percentile value of not less than 70 percent survival using tests as specified in Table 4-4 and Table 4-5. Compliance with the acute toxicity limitation is evaluated by measuring survival of test fishes exposed to effluent for 96 hours. Each fish species represents a single sample. Dischargers are required to conduct flow-through effluent toxicity tests, except for those that discharge intermittently and discharge less than 1.0 million gallons per day (average dry weather flow). Such small, intermittent dischargers are required to perform static renewal bioassays. All dischargers perform toxicity tests using fish species, according to protocols approved by the U.S. EPA or State Board or published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or American Public Health Association. Two fish species shall be tested concurrently. These shall be the most sensitive two species determined from concurrent screening(s) of three species: three-spine stickleback, rainbow trout, and fathead minnow. Tests completed within ten days of the initial test are considered concurrent. This three-species-screening requirement can be met using either flow-through or static renewal bioassays. The Regional Board may consider allowing compliance monitoring with only one (the most sensitive, if known) fish species, if the following condition is met: The discharger can document that the acute toxicity limitation, specified above, has not been exceeded during the previous three years, or that acute toxicity has been observed in only one of two fish species. The Regional Board may modify the flow-through bioassay requirements and the specific test species requirements on a case-by-case basis for discharges of once-through cooling water or excessively saline wastes, which make the implementation of these test requirements impractical. Such changes are not intended as a reduction in the acute toxicity limitation, but rather to account for the technical difficulties of performing the tests. In addition, for deep water discharges subject to marine effluent limitations, dischargers are not to be considered out of compliance with the acute toxicity effluent limitation under the following circumstances: the discharger documents that the only cause of acute toxicity is ammonia which rapidly decays in the receiving water, and demonstrates that ammonia in the discharge does not impact water quality or beneficial uses. CHRONIC TOXICITY Chronic toxicity effluent limits are derived for individual dischargers based upon Best Professional Judgement. Some of the factors that may be considered in the development of these limits include: allowing credit for dilution comparable to those allowed for numeric chemical-specific objectives, effluent variability, and intent to protect against consistent chronic toxicity and severe episodic toxic events. Chronic toxicity limitations are contained in the permits of all dischargers that have completed or are currently participating in the Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program (ETCP). This includes all municipal facilities with pre-treatment programs, all major industrial facilities, and selected treated groundwater dischargers. Monitoring requirements for chronic toxicity, such as test species, effluent sampling procedures, dilution series, monitoring frequency, dilution waters and reference toxicant testing requirements, are specified in NPDES permits on a case-by-case basis. Monitoring requirements will be based on Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program data. Test species and protocols will be selected from those listed in Table 4-5. Dischargers with chronic toxicity limits in their permits monitoring quarterly or less frequently are required to accelerate the frequency to monthly (or as otherwise specified by the Executive Officer) when conditions such as those listed in Table 4-6 occur. TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION/REDUCTION EVALUATION (TIE/TRE) Permits shall require that if consistent toxicity is exhibited, then a chronic toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) and toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) shall be conducted. Specific language in permits requires the development of workplans for implementing TIEs. TIEs will be initiated within 30 days of detection of persistent toxicity. The purpose of a TIE is to identify the chemical or combination of chemicals causing the observed toxicity. Every reasonable effort using currently available TIE methodologies shall be employed by the discharger. The Regional Board recognizes that identification of causes of chronic toxicity may not be successful in all cases. The purposes of a TRE are to identify the source(s) of the toxic constituents and evaluate alternative strategies for reducing or eliminating their discharge. The TRE shall include all reasonable steps to reduce toxicity to the required level. In addition, the Regional Board will review chronic toxicity test results to assess acute toxicity and consider the need for an acute TIE. Following completion of the TRE, if consistent toxicity is still exhibited in a discharge, then the discharger shall pursue all feasible waste minimization measures at a level that is acceptable to the Regional Board. The discharger must document that the acceptable level of participation is maintained by submitting reports on a specified schedule to the Regional Board. A Toxicity Reduction Evaluation may again be required in situations where chronic toxicity still exists and new techniques for identifying and reducing toxicity become available. Alternatively, the cause of effluent toxicity may change, so that existing techniques will enable identification and reduction of toxicity. Consideration of any enforcement action by the Regional Board for violation of the effluent limitation will be based in part on the discharger's actions in identifying and reducing sources of persistent toxicity. EFFLUENT TOXICITY CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM The Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program was initiated in 1986 with the goal of developing and implementing toxicity limits for each discharger based on actual characteristics of both receiving waters and waste streams. The Regional Board initiated the program as a means of implementing the narrative objective prohibiting toxic effects in receiving water. The first two phases of the program focused on developing methods for monitoring effluent toxicity (known as effluent characterization) and deriving the appropriate series of tests to ensure that each effluent and its immediate receiving waters are not toxic to aquatic organisms. Information from these phases is used to determine whether the narrative objectives are being met in each segment of the Bay and will support the development of site-specific water quality objectives and wasteload allocations. As the program progresses, the Regional Board may: (a) Modify existing effluent limits; (b) Specify different test organisms and methods for determining compliance with toxicity effluent limits; and/or (3) Require a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) to determine the cost-effectiveness of controlling toxicity or reducing concentrations of specific pollutants. This program is being implemented within the existing framework of the NPDES permitting program for municipal and industrial facilities. The purposes of effluent characterization are to: · Define effluent variability so that the most appropriate compliance monitoring program can be put in place for each discharge and so that adequate information can be developed to determine if treatment processes or source control modifications are necessary to comply with effluent limits; · Define the sensitivity of different test species to different effluents so that appropriate acute toxicity effluent limits can be defined and to identify the most sensitive of a group of test organisms used for compliance monitoring; and · Define the chronic toxicity of the effluent to different test species such that the most sensitive organism of a standard set can be defined and either used for compliance monitoring or used for development of application factors to be applied to the acute toxicity effluent limit. Two rounds of effluent characterization have been completed by dischargers selected on the basis of the nature, volume, and location of discharge. The first round started characterization in 1988; the second round in 1991. The Regional Board adopted guidance documents for each round of characterization, with modifications made to the second round from knowledge gained during the first. Status reports were issued in July, 1989, March, 1990, and July, 1991. A summary report is scheduled upon completion of the second round in 1995. The need for a third round of characterization will be evaluated at that time. Thus far, no one test species has consistently been the most sensitive to all discharges. This strongly supports the current approach of requiring screening using several test species. Also, acute toxicity has been observed at several sites using the expanded range of test species. Although these sites can meet existing limits with test species currently used to determine compliance (fathead minnow, trout, and stickleback), they cannot meet the limits based on more sensitive species now available. Detailed technical guidelines for conducting toxicity tests and analyzing resulting data were compiled in "Modified Guidelines: Effluent Toxicity Characterization Program," San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1991, Resolution No. 91-083, after experience gained during the first round. This document is incorporated by reference into this plan. CALCULATION OF WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Water quality-based effluent limitations shall be calculated from water quality objectives based on the following equation: Ce = Co + D(Co - Cb) where, Ce = the effluent limitation for the substance; Co = the water quality objective for the substance; D = the assigned dilution ratio for the discharge, as described in the section below entitled Dilution Ratios; Cb = the ambient background concentration as shown in Table 4-7 in the section below entitled Background Concentrations. The above equation applies to cases where ambient concentrations are equal to or less than the water quality objective. In some cases, the anti-degradation policy and anti-backsliding policy may result in more stringent effluent limitations than indicated by the formula. DILUTION RATIOS The allocation of dilution ratio depends on whether a discharge is classified as a deep water or a shallow water discharge. DEEP WATER DISCHARGES The effluent limitations for deep water discharges were calculated using a dilution ratio of 10:1 or D=9. While it is recognized that the actual initial dilution of many deep water discharges is greater than ten, the Regional Board has taken this conservative approach to calculating effluent limitations for the following reasons. First, there is concern over the effects of the cumulative mass loadings of toxic pollutants from the numerous discharges into San Francisco Bay. Limiting the allocation of dilution credits is one means of limiting mass loadings. Second, recent Regional Board studies have detected toxicity in ambient waters throughout the Bay system based on laboratory toxicity tests. This calls for a cautious approach in allowing the discharge of toxic substances. Third, it is difficult to either measure or predict actual dilution in the San Francisco Bay estuarine environment. In the Estuary, the direction of waste transport varies over the course of the tidal cycle, so it is difficult to determine the fraction of new water versus recirculated water mixing with the discharge. U.S. EPA has developed several models of initial dilution for discharge plumes, but none take into account transport due to tidal currents. The Regional Board will consider inclusion of an effluent limitation greater than that calculated from water quality objectives when the increase in concentration is caused by implementation of significant water reclamation or water reuse programs at the facility; the increase in the effluent limitation does not result in an increase in the mass loading; and water quality objectives will not be exceeded outside the zone of initial dilution. SHALLOW WATER DISCHARGES The effluent limitations for shallow water discharges were calculated assuming no dilution, or D=0. In other words, the effluent limitation is equal to the objective. Background concentrations are not taken into account in this case because no dilution credit is granted. Shallow water dischargers may apply to the Regional Board for exceptions to the assigned dilution ratio of D=0 (and thus to the shallow water effluent limitations) based on demonstration of compliance with water quality objectives in the receiving waters. Exceptions will only be considered on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis where an aggressive pretreatment and source control program is in place, including the following: · Completion of a source identification study; · Development and implementation of a source reduction plan; and · Commitment of resources to fully implement the source control and reduction plan. Exception will be granted only if needed to meet effluent limits and only after very rigorous scrutiny of source control efforts and receiving water data. When exceptions are granted, permits shall include provisions requiring continuing efforts at source control, targeting the substances to which the exceptions apply. For certain low volume, short duration, or one-time discharges, the requirements of pretreatment and source control program may not be practical. The Regional Board may choose to waive such requirements for pollutants in low volume discharges determined to have no significant adverse impact on water quality. The demonstration of compliance with objectives shall address the following issues: (a) A demonstration that the proposed effluent limitation will result in compliance with water quality objectives, including the narrative chronic toxicity objective, in the receiving water. Water quality objectives used in this demonstration are to be based on ambient salinity and hardness (for fresh waters) at the time of sampling. In addition, demonstration of compliance is to be based on the averaging period associated with each objective. Compliance with both acute and chronic chemical-specific water quality objectives shall be demonstrated. If freshwater objectives apply in the receiving waters (i.e., salinity is less than 5 parts per thousand), compliance with saltwater objectives shall also be demonstrated at the nearest point in the receiving waters where salinity reaches 5 parts per thousand. Such a demonstration shall be based on ambient monitoring at a frequency equal to that typically required for effluent monitoring for a period of time defined in the study plan; (b) An evaluation of worst-case conditions (in terms of tidal cycle, currents, or instream flows, as appropriate) through monitoring and/or modeling to demonstrate that water quality objectives will continue to be met, taking into account the averaging period associated with each objective; and (c) An evaluation of the effects of mass loading resulting from allowing higher concentrations of pollutants in the discharge, in particular, the potential for accumulation of pollutants in aquatic life or sediments to levels that would impair aquatic life or threaten human health. This evaluation may include sampling of sediment and biota in the vicinity of the discharge to determine the accumulation of pollutants resulting from the current levels of discharge. A study plan for conducting this work must be submitted to the Regional Board for approval by the Executive Officer. Results of the study or studies addressing these three points shall be submitted to the Regional Board. Effluent limitations based on either concentration or mass loading shall be developed for consideration by the Regional Board based on study results and any other available information. The goal in setting effluent limitations shall be to ensure that water quality objectives are met in the receiving water and that mass loadings are limited to a level that provides protection of beneficial uses. In no case shall effluent limitations be greater than the deep water effluent limitations or impair the basis upon which exception to the prohibition against discharge to shallow water was granted. Continued ambient monitoring shall also be required to ensure that water quality objectives are met. FRESH WATER VS. MARINE WATER Due to the unique estuarine environment that exists in the region, the salinity characteristics (i.e., freshwater vs. marine water) of the receiving water shall be considered in establishing water quality objectives. Freshwater effluent limitations shall apply to discharges to waters both outside the zone of tidal influence and with salinities lower than 5 parts per thousand at least 75 percent of the time in a normal water year. Marine effluent limitations shall apply to discharges to waters with salinities greater than 5 parts per thousand at least 75 percent of the time in a normal water year, except for discharges to the Pacific Ocean, which are covered by the California Ocean Plan. For discharges to waters with salinities in between these two categories or to tidally influenced fresh waters that support estuarine beneficial uses, effluent limitations shall be the lower of the marine or freshwater effluent limitation, based on ambient hardness, for each substance. BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS When dilution credit is granted, the background concentration of the substance is taken into account in calculating effluent limitations so that the dilution provided by mixing with receiving waters is not overestimated. Ambient background concentration means the median concentration of a substance, in the vicinity of a discharge, which is not influenced by the discharge. For the San Francisco Estuary, it is difficult to identify a location that is not influenced by a discharge. Furthermore, background concentrations should vary within the Estuary due to changing geochemistry of the waters as they travel downstream. However, in order to simplify the calculation of effluent limitations, it is desirable to use one background concentration throughout the region. Table 4-7 shows a first approximation of natural background concentrations for metals in salt and fresh water. For substances not included in Table 4-7, the background concentrations were assumed to be zero in calculating effluent limitations. As additional data become available, the Basin Plan may be amended to add background concentrations for other substances. Discharges to the South Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge are not obligated to comply with the effluent limits contained in Table 4-1 because of their unique situations as described in Chapter 3. However, they are obligated to perform specific, detailed work identified in the Municipal Facilities section of this chapter which will result in the development of site-specific water quality objectives, effluent limits, and other control measures. The Regional Board will adopt schedules for developing site-specific water quality objectives and for possibly revising effluent limits when it considers the requests of the South Bay dischargers for exemptions from the discharge prohibitions for their current locations. IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS In incorporating and implementing effluent limitations in NPDES permits, the following general guidance shall apply: (A) PERFORMANCE-BASED LIMITS Where water quality objectives in the receiving water are being met, and an existing effluent limitation for a substance in a discharge is significantly lower than appropriate water quality-based limits, performance-based effluent limitations for that substance may be specified or the effluent limit revised. Any changes are subject to compliance with the state Antidegradation Policy. The performance-based effluent limitation may be either concentration- or mass-based, as appropriate. (B) SITE-SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE INCORPORATION Once the Regional Board has adopted a site-specific objective for any substance, effluent limitations shall be calculated from that objective in accordance with the methods described above. (C) AVERAGING PERIODS For some substances there may be more than one effluent limitation with different averaging periods (e.g., daily average and 30-day average). In both cases, the effluent limitations shall apply to the mean concentration of all samples analyzed during the averaging period. If only one sample is taken during the averaging period, the effluent limitation applies to the concentration of that sample. (D) METHOD DETECTION LIMITS, PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LEVELS (PQL), AND LIMITS OF QUANTIFICATION (LOQ) Method Detection Limits are defined in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 136, Appendix B (revised June 30, 1986). Practical Quantitation Level is the lowest concentration of a substance within plus or minus 20 percent of the true concentration by 75 percent of the analytical laboratories testing in a performance evaluation study. If performance data are not available, the PQL is the MDL x 5 for carcinogens and the MDL x 10 for noncarcinogens. Limits of Quantification are ten standard deviations greater than the average measured blank values used in developing the MDL. These terms and concepts are useful when pollutant concentrations in waters are relatively low. However, these will be taken into account in determining compliance with, rather than in the calculation of, effluent limitations. (E) SELECTION OF PARAMETERS Effluent limits are not necessary for substances that do not pose any risk to beneficial uses or are shown not to be present in discharge. However, a discharger must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that particular substances do not cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above numerical and narrative objectives. Dischargers must also demonstrate that pollutants of concern are (a) not in the waste stream, and (b) no change has occurred that may cause release of pollutants. This certification shall be supported, at a minimum, by monitoring results for such pollutants and process and treatment descriptions that demonstrate these substances are not expected to be present in the waste stream. At a minimum, this monitoring and certification is required prior to issuance and reissuance of WDRs. The Regional Board may choose to not require periodic monitoring and certification for pollutants in low volume discharges determined to have no significant adverse impact on water quality. (F) COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES As new objectives or standards are adopted, permits will be revised accordingly. Revised permits will distinguish between effluent limitations that are met by current performance, and effluent limitations not currently attained. Immediate compliance will be required for effluent limitations that are met by current performance. The Regional Board may consider dischargers' proposals for longer compliance schedules for newly adopted objectives or standards as NPDES permit conditions for particular substances, where revised effluent limitations are not currently being met and where justified. The primary goal in setting compliance schedules is to promote the completion of source control and waste minimization measures, including water reclamation. Justification for compliance schedules will include, at a minimum, all of the following: (a) Submission of results of a diligent effort to quantify pollutant levels in the discharge and the sources of the pollutant in the waste stream; (b) Documentation of source control efforts currently underway or completed, including compliance with the Pollution Prevention program described in the Basin Plan; (c) A proposed schedule for additional source control measures or waste treatment; and (d) A demonstration that the proposed schedule is as short as possible. Implementation of source control measures to reduce pollutant loadings to the maximum extent practicable shall be completed as soon as possible, but in no event later than four years after new objectives or standards take effect. Implementation of any additional measures that may be required to comply with effluent limitations shall be completed as soon as possible, but in no event later than ten years after new objectives or standards take effect. The issuance of the permit containing a compliance schedule should not result in a violation of any applicable requirement of the federal Clean Water Act or the California Water Code, including any applicable Clean Water Act statutory deadlines. STORMWATER DISCHARGES As discussed in a later section titled "Urban Runoff Management," the Regional Board has initiated a program that regulates certain municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater discharges through NPDES permits. Since both the sources of pollutants in stormwater discharges and the points of discharge are diffuse, and the methods of reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges are in the development stage, water quality-based numerical effluent limitations are not feasible at this time. Instead, stormwater permits will include requirements to prevent or reduce discharges of pollutants that cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives. Compliance with these requirements is expected to be achieved through implementation of control measures or best management practices identified in dischargers' stormwater management plans or stormwater pollution prevention plans. Instead, stormwater permits will include requirements to prevent or reduce discharges of pollutants that cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives for receiving waters. Compliance with these requirements is expected to be achieved through implementation of control measures or best management practices identified in dischargers' stormwater management plans or stormwater pollution prevention plans. The Regional Board is taking a phased approach towards attainment of water quality objectives in waters that receive stormwater discharges from urban areas and certain industrial and construction activities. The Regional Board will first require entities subject to NPDES permits for stormwater discharges to complete implementation of technically and economically feasible control measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. For industrial facilities, such control measures include those representing the best available technology that is economically achievable. NPDES permits for stormwater discharges will require completion of technically and economically feasible control measures as soon as possible. Specific schedules for implementing control measures may, at the discretion of the Regional Board, be included in permits (to the extent that such schedules are authorized by state or federal laws) either by reference to a stormwater management plan or by permit conditions. In no event will these schedules extend beyond the term of the permit. If this first phase does not result in attainment of water quality objectives, the Regional Board will consider permit conditions which may require implementation of additional control measures. In such circumstances, the Regional Board may consider dischargers' proposed schedules for identification and implementation of additional control measures designed to attain water quality objectives. Such schedules shall be as short as practicable and will only be considered for inclusion in permits when a discharger has demonstrated the following: (a) A diligent effort to quantify pollutant levels and the sources of the pollutant in stormwater discharges; and (b) Documentation of completion of implementation of all technically and economically reasonable control measures. WET WEATHER OVERFLOWS During periods of heavy rainfall, large pulses of water enter sewerage systems. When these pulses exceed the collection, treatment, or disposal capacity of a sewerage system, overflows occur. This is especially problematic for sewer systems that combine both sanitary sewage and stormwater (Combined Sewer Systems or CSS), such as the City and County of San Francisco's system (discussed under the municipal discharger section). All other municipalities in the region operate two distinct sewer systems. Wet weather is also problematic for separate systems because more water infiltrates the pipes leading to treatment plants. This problem is commonly referred to as inflow/infiltration (I/I). In either case, pulses of water during wet weather may cause untreated or partially treated wastewater to be discharged directly to surface water bodies. Wet weather overflows of wastewater affect three types of beneficial uses: water contact recreation, non-contact water recreation, and shellfish harvesting. The water quality characteristics that can adversely affect these beneficial uses are pathogens, oxygen-demanding pollutants, suspended and settleable solids, nutrients, toxics, and floatable matter. FEDERAL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL POLICY On April 11, 1994, the U.S. EPA adopted the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy (50FR 18688). This policy establishes a consistent national approach for controlling discharges from CSOs to the nation’s water. Using the NPDES permit program, the policy initiates a two-phased process with higher priority given to more environmentally sensitive areas. During the first phase, the permittee is required to implement the following 9 Minimum Controls. These constitute the technology-based requirements of the Clean Water Act as applied to combined sewer facilities (best conventional treatment (BCT) and best available treatment (BAT)). These minimum controls can reduce CSOs and their effects on receiving water quality: (1) Conduct proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the CSS and the CSO outfalls; (2) Maximize use of the collection system for storage; (3) Review and modify pretreatment programs to ensure that CSO impacts are minimized; (4) Maximize flow to the POTW for treatment; (5) Prohibit CSOs during dry weather; (6) Control solids and floatable materials in CSOs; (7) Develop and implement pollution prevention programs that focus on contaminant reduction activities; (8) Notify the public; and (9) Monitor to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls. Compliance with the minimum controls shall be as soon as practicable, but no later than January 1, 1997. The permittee is also required to initiate development of a long-term control plan to select CSO controls, based on consideration of the permittee's financial capability. The second phase of the process involves implementation of the long-term control plan developed in the first phase. Such implementation must provide for the attainment of water quality objectives and may result in additional site-specific technology-based controls, as well as water quality-based performance standards that are established based on best professional judgement. While numeric water quality-based effluent limits are not readily established due to unpredictability of a storm event and the general lack of data, the CSO Control Policy requires immediate compliance with water quality standards expressed in the form of a narrative limitation. The Regional Board intends to implement the federal CSO Control Policy for the combined sewer overflows from the City and County of San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco has substantially completed implementation of the long-term CSO control plan (and is thereby exempted requirements to prepare a long-term control plan). Additionally, the following is the Regional Board's recommended approach to control the seasonal degradation of water quality that results from all wet weather overflows of wastewater, including POTWs with either combined and separate sewer systems, and industrial wastewater facilities. The overflow from San Francisco's combined sewer system is addressed by the CSO Control Policy described above. CONCEPTUAL APPROACH The recommended approach to controlling wet weather overflows of wastewater that contains particular characteristics of concern to beneficial uses is a combination of designated alternative levels of maintenance (i.e., combination of treatment levels and beneficial use protection categories) and guidance for the design of overflow discharge structures. The Regional Board is not endorsing any specific control measures, but is presenting a conceptual framework that allows for the evaluation of costs and benefits. This framework can be used as guidance in adopting specific control measures. As with all of its programs, the Regional Board will implement this conceptual approach consistent with the national goal of "...water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water." Maintenance and associated treatment and overflow requirements are detailed in Table 4-8. The following requirements should be met for all overflows: (a) Outfalls achieve an initial dilution of 10:1; (b) Overflows receive treatment to remove large visible floatable material and to protect the outfall system; and (c) Overflow locations be removed from dead-end sloughs and channels, and from close proximity to beaches and marinas. Exceptions to (a) and (c) will be considered where an inordinate burden would be placed on the discharger relative to beneficial uses protected, and when an equivalent level of environmental protection can be achieved by alternative means, such as an alternative discharge site, a higher level of treatment, and/or improved treatment reliability. The conceptual approach described above will be used by the Regional Board in evaluating wet weather discharge conditions where polluted stormwater or process wastewater bypasses any treatment unit or units that are used in the normal treatment of the waste stream. Evaluation of such discharges must include identification of: · Actual capacities of the collection system, each treatment unit, and the disposal system; · Flow return period probabilities for the specific facility location; · Cost of providing complete storage or treatment capacity and disposal capacity for flow return periods of 1, 5, and 20 years; · Quality of the polluted stormwater and process wastewater for flow return periods of 1, 5, and 20, years; and · Beneficial uses that may be affected by such discharges. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT OVERFLOW PROTECTION In providing protection of waste management units against wet weather overflows, Chapter 15 requires that surface impoundments must have sufficient freeboard to accommodate seasonal precipitation and precipitation conditions specified for each class of waste management unit. Those specified precipitation conditions are probable maximum precipitation for Class I units; and the 1000-year, 24-hour precipitation for Class II units. To guarantee the protection of water quality, the Regional Board will interpret seasonal precipitation to be the 100-year return period wet season for Class I units and the 10-year return period wet season for Class II units. The sources to be used for determining the applicable precipitation for a given return period and location are California Department of Water Resources Bulletin No. 195 (or any update by the Department), local water agency publications, or other sources approved by the Executive Officer. DISCHARGE OF TREATED GROUNDWATER Cleanup of groundwater contamination sites often includes groundwater extraction, and thus creates the need for proper disposal of treated groundwater. The majority of the groundwater pollution cases of the region involve surface spills, pipeline breaks, or leakages from tanks, vaults, sumps, surface impoundments, or landfills. Toxic pollutants commonly found in groundwater range from solvents (including volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds), petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or a combination of these pollutants. In many cases, the treated groundwater is discharged to surface waters via storm drains. These direct discharges would normally require an exception to the prohibitions against discharge into shallow or non-tidal waters. To address this issue, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 88-160 (see Chapter 5). The Resolution urges dischargers of groundwater extracted from site clean-up projects to reclaim their effluent. When reclamation is not technically and/or economically feasible, discharges must be piped to a municipal treatment plant. Furthermore, as required in State Water Board Resolution 89-21 (see Chapter 5), the Regional Board recognizes the resource value of the extracted and treated groundwater and urges its utilization for the highest beneficial use for which applicable water quality standards can be achieved. The Regional Board will consider granting an exception to the discharge prohibitions only if (a) it has been demonstrated that neither reclamation nor discharge to a POTW is technically or economically feasible, and (b) beneficial uses of the receiving water are not adversely affected. Such an exception is based on the Regional Board's recognition that discharges allowed under the exception are an integral part of a program to clean-up polluted groundwater and thereby produce an environmental benefit. Dischargers shall demonstrate that their groundwater extraction and treatment systems and associated operation, maintenance, and monitoring plans constitute acceptable programs for minimizing the discharge of toxic substances and for complying with effluent limitations deemed necessary for protection of the beneficial uses of receiving waters. Applications for NPDES permits to discharge treated groundwater directly to surface waters will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, the Regional Board has adopted general NPDES permits for the following two types of groundwater clean-up projects: (a)Groundwater polluted by fuel leaks and other related wastes at service stations and similar sites (adopted on April 17, 1991 in, Order No. 91-056, NPDES No. CA0029815); and (b)Groundwater polluted by volatile organic compounds, VOCs (adopted on July 20, 1994, in Order No. 94-087, NPDES No. CAG912003). The general permits were intended to streamline a common regulatory process. The Regional Board may renew, revise, or rescind the permits if deemed appropriate. In establishing effluent limitations, no dilution credit was allowed in the general permits for primary pollutants of concern. However, ambient levels of heavy metals in groundwater may sometimes result in exceedances of effluent limitations that did not provide allowance for dilution. This is especially a concern for clean-up of groundwater polluted with VOCs when heavy metals were not contributed to the environment. The inadvertent discharge of background metals would be a result of the effort to extract groundwater for the removal of VOCs. A study conducted by Regional Board staff in 1993 concluded that metals concentrations in the effluent of these groundwater discharges would sometimes exceed effluent limitations with zero dilution credit, but would rarely exceed concentrations of twice of such limits. As a result, the general permit adopted for cleanup of VOCs-polluted groundwater (Order No. 94-087) sets heavy metals effluent limitations based on a 1:1 dilution credit. Consideration for allowing limited dilution credit in this case is based on reasons which are unique to the specific type of groundwater cleanup discharges which are temporary and are due to non-metal contamination. Metal mass loading to the Bay from these discharges is insignificant compared to other sources and the dischargers usually have no feasible way to reduce the loadings. However, special studies shall be required in the event of any chronic violations of such metals limits. MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Table 4-9 is a list of municipal wastewater treatment facilities (excluding wet weather facilities) within the Region that discharge directly into surface waters. Figure 4-1 shows where these facilities are located in the region. Under normal operational conditions, these POTWs provide a minimum of secondary treatment. In addition, with more than thirty percent of the total flow receives advanced treatment. Brief discussions of the issues specific to the City and County of San Francisco, South Bay dischargers, the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, the Livermore-Amador Valley, and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District are presented below. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO The City and County of San Francisco collects the wastewater in a combined sewer system. That is, the domestic sewage, industrial wastewater, and stormwater runoff are all collected in the same pipes (combined sewer). Such system is subject to overloading during severe storms. Most other communities in California have a separated sewer system: one set of pipes for domestic sewage and industrial wastes and another set for stormwater. San Francisco is near completion of the primary components of its wastewater facilities master plan. This construction program began in 1974 with the publication of the Master Plan Environmental Impact Statement and Report. The integrated wastewater control system established by the master plan has been designed to provide control and treatment for both dry weather sewage and wet weather storm flows. All dry weather flows currently receive secondary level treatment. At program completion in 1996, all wet weather flows including stormwater runoff will be captured and will receive a specified level of treatment depending on the size of the storm. Pollutant removal from stormwater will be approximately 60 percent system-wide (measured as reduction in total suspended solids). San Francisco is one of the first municipalities in the nation to complete a comprehensive control program for a combined sewer system. The expenditures for completing the wastewater master plan is about $ 1.45 billion. The Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant is a major component of San Francisco's wastewater treatment system. The plant provides secondary level treatment for all dry weather domestic and industrial wastewater from the Bayside drainage area in San Francisco (approximately 75 percent of the total citywide flow). The Oceanside plant provides similar treatment on the Westside. The storage/transports around the periphery of the city store combined sewage for treatment after the storms subside. Additionally, northeast zone storm flows receive treatment at the Northpoint wet weather treatment plant. SOUTH BAY MUNICIPAL DISCHARGERS (SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA, PALO ALTO, AND SUNNYVALE) The South Bay municipal dischargers consist of three sewage treatment facilities: the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and the Sunnyvale WPCP. These three plants serve all of the urban communities of Santa Clara County located in the region. The South Bay municipal dischargers, as shown in Figure 4-1, presently discharge effluent receiving tertiary treatment (secondary plus nitrification, filtration, and disinfection) to shallow sloughs contiguous with the Bay, south of the Dumbarton Bridge. Therefore, all three dischargers must meet shallow water effluent concentration limits for toxic pollutants. In 1988, the Regional Board identified the following issues that needed further study in the South Bay. As part of the reissuance of the South Bay NPDES permits, the Regional Board required the three South Bay dischargers to address these issues. · Identify the sources of metals to the WPCPs; · Assure the quality of WPCP laboratory measurements; · Evaluate existing WPCP performance relative to the removal of metals, and evaluate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of new processes; · Initiate laboratory and field investigations relative to establishing site-specific numerical receiving water objectives for copper, nickel and mercury; · Monitor conversion of saltwater marshes to freshwater marshes adjacent to the point of discharges; · Evaluate the City of San Jose and Sunnyvale WPCP sludge lagoons; · Establish an Avian Botulism monitoring and control program for the City of Sunnyvale treatment ponds and discharge area in the slough; and · Evaluate WPCP ammonia removals. Based on the results of these studies the Regional Board amended the NPDES permits for the three South Bay dischargers on several occasions. In 1989, San Francisco Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge (South Bay) was designated by EPA as an impaired water body under Section 304(l) of the Clean Water Act due to anthropogenic inputs of seven metals. The three municipal plants and stormwater runoff were designated as sources contributing to the impairment. As of 1994, the wastewater effluents of the three plants routinely exceed the concentration limit for copper and occasionally exceed the limits for other metals such as nickel. South Bay monitoring data collected by the dischargers from 1989 to 1992 indicate that U.S. EPA water quality criteria for copper, nickel, and mercury are regularly violated in the receiving waters south of the Dumbarton Bridge. The Basin Plan prohibits the discharge of wastewater to San Francisco Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge, as well as prohibiting the following: · Discharge without initial dilution of at least 10 to 1; · Discharge into any dead-end slough; and · Discharge of any conservative toxic and deleterious substances above the levels which can be achieved by a program acceptable to the Regional Board. State Board Order WQ 90-5 (1990) found that a net environmental benefit exception could not be made for the three dischargers. However, the Order found that a finding of equivalent protection can be made if water quality based concentration limits for metals and revised mass loading limits for metals are placed in the dischargers' NPDES permits, if Sunnyvale and San Jose/Santa Clara continue avian botulism control programs, and if San Jose/Santa Clara implements mitigation for loss and degradation of endangered species habitat. Order 90-5 also included provisions that would prevent increases in flows that would adversely impact endangered species habitats. The Regional Board has amended and reissued permits to the South Bay municipal dischargers to provide equivalent protection. On April 17, 1991, the NPDES permits of the three South Bay Municipal Dischargers were amended to include water quality based concentration limits and revised mass loading limits for metals, as directed by State Board Order WQ 90-5. Annual avian botulism control program reports are provisions of the Sunnyvale and San Jose/Santa Clara permits. On September 30, 1991, the City of San Jose proposed the "Action Plan," which was developed to fulfill the endangered species habitat protection requirement. The Action Plan consists of programs for salt marsh conversion mitigation as well as ambitious water conservation and reclamation projects. The Action Plan was accepted by the Regional Board in Resolution 91-152 in lieu of the 120 MGD flow restriction. However, Resolution 91-152 allows for reconsideration of the flow cap if certain conditions of the Action Plan are not met by the discharger. Provisions of the Action Plan are included in the San Jose/Santa Clara NPDES permit as conditions for an exception to the Basin Plan prohibitions. In 1991, water quality-based permit limits were included in the discharger's NPDES permits. These new limits were based on continuing concern regarding ambient and discharged levels of copper, nickel, mercury, and other metals. Because the new limits were frequently exceeded, the Regional Board also adopted enforcement orders concurrent with the adoption of revised NPDES permits in 1993. The enforcement orders establish schedules and a pollution prevention program to achieve compliance with the permit limits for copper, nickel, and cyanide. The pollution prevention programs specified in the Order were developed through negotiations between Clean South Bay (a coalition of environmental groups) and the dischargers. Board staff andindustrial representatives also participated in the negotiations. These programs represent a second phase of implementation of pollution prevention by the three dischargers. Since the first phase of programs was begun in early 1989, the dischargers have reduced their combined discharge of copper mass by approximately 25 percent, and no longer violate effluent limits for silver. The second phase of programs was designed to control the sources of copper and nickel to the treatment plants from industry, commercial establishments, residences, and copper corrosion from water supply pipes. In the industrial sector the dischargers will require industrial firms that contribute the majority of copper and nickel to the treatment plants to conduct (or have conducted for them) pollution prevention audits and to identify cost-effective measures for reducing those discharges. Additionally, the enforcement orders require the dischargers to adopt new local discharge limits for commercial and industrial facilities. All three dischargers are also required to continue and expand their existing source control programs in the commercial and residential sectors, which have focused on best management practices and public education. To address contributions of copper from the water supply, the dischargers have worked cooperatively with a steering committee comprised of water distributors, suppliers, and retailers and (1) evaluated alternative corrosion inhibitors to reduce copper corrosion from pipes, and (2) examined the feasibility of eliminating the use of copper sulfate as an algicide in drinking water reservoirs. The negotiations with the largest of the three dischargers, the San Jose/Santa Clara plant (75 percent of the three combined flows), resulted in landmark funding arrangements for pollution prevention. As part of the settlement agreement with Clean South Bay, the City of San Jose will establish a Capital Fund of $2 million to assist small businesses with their investment in cost-effective pollution prevention measures identified by the required audits. The city will also pay $375,000 to establish a Pollution Prevention Center which accounts for any violations of copper, nickel, or silver that may have occurred or may occur between April 17, 1991 and October 20, 1998. The Center will function as an information clearinghouse for best available pollution prevention technologies. These measures will facilitate pollution prevention strategies that will benefit both the economy (cost-effective control strategies) and the environment (reduced mass discharge) in the long term. The enforcement orders contain compliance schedules for specific mass and concentration limits. The compliance schedules were developed to correspond with the required pollution prevention measures and to provide sufficient time for the measures to be implemented and subsequent reductions in mass and concentration to be realized. As of 1994, effluent data from all three plants continue to show substantial improvements with regard to both mass and concentration of metals discharged. These effluent quality improvements may be related to a combination of successful pollution prevention efforts and innovative experimentation with treatment plant operations. In addition, monitoring results from the 1993 Regional Monitoring Program indicated that ambient water concentrations of mercury and copper in the lower portion of the South Bay did not exceed levels of concern. Water column levels of nickel did exceed the objective at one South Bay station. The Regional Board will continue to assess the long-term trends in ambient levels of metals in this segment of the Bay. FAIRFIELD-SUISUN SEWER DISTRICT (FSSD) The FSSD's tertiary wastewater treatment plant has a dry weather treatment capacity of 17.5 million gallons per day (mgd), a wet weather capacity of 40 mgd, and 45 million gallons of off-line storage capacity. The District is currently treating 13 mgd (1993 dry weather data) from a service population of about 111,000. In order to comply with the Regional Board's prohibition against dry weather discharges to the Suisun Marsh, FSSD operates a reclamation project in cooperation with the Solano Irrigation District. However, due to various contractual, legal and economic constraints, only about 40 percent of the treatment plant's annual effluent flow is reclaimed for agricultural irrigation. The remainder is discharged to Boynton Slough in Suisun Marsh. The Regional Board required FSSD to conduct an investigation to evaluate the discharge’s impact on water quality conditions and beneficial uses of the receiving waters. This investigation was completed in 1987 and found that the discharge has some measurable local effects on water quality in Boynton Slough, but that beneficial uses are not impaired by the discharge. The study concluded that, overall and on a year-round basis, the discharge affords a net environmental benefit to Boynton Slough and the Suisun Marsh. Given the findings of this study, the plant's high degree of operational redundancy and emergency storage capacity, and continued efforts by FSSD to maximize the use of reclaimed water, the Regional Board has granted FSSD an exception to the Basin Plan prohibition. The Regional Board allows, through the NPDES permit issued to FSSD, that portion of FSSD's tertiary effluent which cannot be reclaimed to be discharged to Boynton Slough on a year-round basis. LIVERMORE-AMADOR VALLEY INTRODUCTION The primary Board concern in the Livermore-Amador Valley is that an integrated water/wastewater resource operational plan be implemented to protect the main groundwater basin from increased salt (TDS) loading. Existing natural saline sources and basin management practices, with minimal water recycling, result in a net salt loading of approximately 5,000 tons/year. The Regional Board supports efforts to concurrently improve the salt balance in the main basin, to increase the local water supply, and to reduce the need for wastewater export through recycled water irrigation and groundwater recharge and other basin management practices. In 1993, the Regional Board approved a Master Water Reuse Permit for the water and wastewater agencies in the valley that provides the framework (described below) within which these goals can be accomplished. A Salt Management Program being developed by the permittees prior to implementation of valley-wide recycling projects will provide updated water quality management policies and objectives. The Regional Board will consider permittee requests for future modifications to Basin Plan policies and objectives as appropriate to facilitate implementation of beneficial reuse projects. BACKGROUND The Livermore-Amador Valley is a closed groundwater basin within the Alameda Creek Watershed with multiple groundwater sub-basins of variable water quality. The main portion of the Main Basin(that portion underlying Livermore and Pleasanton) has the highest water quality, supplies most of the municipal wells in the area, and is used to store and distribute high quality imported water. Alameda Creek and its tributaries recharge the Livermore-Amador Valley groundwater basin and serve as a channel to convey water released from the South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) to the Niles Cone groundwater basin for recharge. During dry weather, creek flow consists primarily of SBA release water. The Zone 7 Water Agency is the potable water wholesaler for the most of Livermore-Amador Valley area and operates facilities to import and treat surface water from the State Water Project, groundwater wells, and distribution pipelines. Zone 7 serves as the overall water quality management planning agency for the Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles and is responsible for management of the valley's surface water and groundwater resources. Dublin-San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) distributes potable water and treats wastewater in the western portion of the valley, including parts of Contra Costa County. The City of Livermore distributes potable water to about one-fourth of Livermore and treats wastewater from the city and adjacent national laboratories. Livermore and DSRSD are member agencies of the Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA). Since 1980, wastewater has been exported from the valley via LAVWMA-operated facilities that connect to an East Bay Dischargers Authority interceptor in San Leandro. These waters are ultimately discharged through the East Bay Dischargers Authority outfall into south San Francisco Bay west of the Oakland Airport. The current surface water quality objectives for the Alameda Creek Watershed above Niles (Table 3-7) were adopted in 1975. They were set primarily to prevent degradation by wastewater discharge during dry weather periods. The Table 3-7 groundwater quality objectives and basin boundary definitions for the Valley were developed by Zone 7 in its May, 1982 "Wastewater Management Plan for the Unsewered, Unincorporated Area of Alameda Creek Above Niles." This plan was prepared when wastewater demineralization and reuse was not considered cost-effective in comparison to export; the LAVWMA export project had only recently become operational; the safety of reuse was less widely accepted; and extensive development with on-site systems remained a possibility. The policies in the 1982 plan consist of a general policy, community wastewater system policies, individual on-site wastewater system policies, and local area policies for known problem areas at that time. The policies were intended to discourage small community wastewater systems and septic tanks in favor of connection to existing large community systems. They also encourage export of wastewater, rather than beneficial reuse via irrigation or groundwater recharge. Since adoption of the wastewater management plan, Zone 7, DSRSD and Livermore's interest in water recycling has been increased by droughts, continuing scarcity of new water supplies, institutional barriers to increasing wastewater export capacity from the valley, and increasing public acceptance of water recycling throughout California. Technological advances and reduced costs of demineralization also now make groundwater recharge with demineralized wastewater a viable tool for managing salt concentrations in the basin. WATER RECYCLING FOR VALLEY WATER - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Zone 7 has projected a need for 10,000-25,000 acre-feet per year of additional water supply within the next 10-15 years. Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency wastewater export disposal capacity is currently limited to 21 million gallons per day. This capacity is projected to be exceeded within the next 10-15 years. Wet weather disposal capacity may be exceeded sooner. Additional effluent storage may achieve marginal increases in effective capacity, but will not meet projected disposal demand at buildout. The water and wastewater agencies of the Livermore-Amador Valley have studied water recycling as an alternative to import of new water supplies and export of wastewater for over 20 years. While LAVWMA continues to investigate export alternatives, the agencies have also developed a strategy for implementing large-scale water recycling. Valleywide water recycling is consistent with the Regional Board's policy on Reclamation, which states in part that disposal of wastewater to inland, estuarine, or coastal waters is not considered a permanent wastewater disposal solution where the potential exists for conservation and reclamation. As directed by Water Code Sections 13511 and 13512, the Regional Board strongly supports the use of recycled water to supplement existing surface and groundwater supplies and will work with agencies to facilitate development of water reclamation facilities. An important Valley water recycling milestone was the City of Livermore's study, "Advanced Treatment and In-Valley Effluent Reuse/Disposal" (October, 1989). The study recommended installing advanced treatment (reverse osmosis demineralization) facilities at the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant to provide recycled water for irrigation and groundwater recharge. The agencies then formed the Tri-Valley Water Recycling Task Force and held several public meetings in 1990 and 1991 to present the findings. The agencies then jointly sponsored the "Livermore-Amador Valley Water Recycling Study" (May 1992), a comprehensive investigation of water recycling options. The study documented the area's hydrogeology. It also identified and analyzed potential projects throughout the valley, including irrigation with non-demineralized effluent, groundwater recharge with demineralized effluent, and export of brine. The report included a discussion of how water recycling could be implemented in conformance with Basin Plan requirements and Zone 7 policies. The report also detailed a strategy for developing a water recycling program incrementally, beginning with small demonstration projects to gain experience and public acceptance and building up to full-scale projects that could contribute substantially to water supply and wastewater disposal needs in future years. The 1992 study documented that between 19,000 and 38,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water could be beneficially reused within the Livermore-Amador Valley via irrigation and groundwater recharge. Well- established technologies and procedures exist for accomplishing such uses and could be in full compliance with Basin Plan and Title 22 requirements. The long-operating Orange County Water District Water Factory 21 project has served as a model for many recycled water groundwater recharge facilities. A key element of proposed valley-wide water recycling is a salt management program for the groundwater basin. This program includes further characterization of basin hydrogeology, refinement of salt balance calculations, selection of TDS targets and examination of alternative ways to offset natural salt loadings. (These measures might include wellhead demineralization of pumped groundwater or diversion of natural salt inflows to export facilities.) The Salt Management Program addresses the Basin Plan objectives for the Alameda Creek Watershed that wastewater disposal/reuse projects be part of an "overall water-wastewater resource operational program developed by the agencies affected and approved by the Regional Board." MASTER WATER REUSE PERMIT As recommended in the study, the agencies jointly applied for a master water reuse permit to cover proposed water recycling activities throughout the Valley. The permit was issued by the Regional Board in December, 1993 (Order No. 93-159). The permit specifies the various technical reports that are required to be submitted for review by the Executive Officer, and approval before projects can commence operation. In this manner, the master permit fully addresses the regulatory requirements that projects must comply with, while facilitating the approval process for individual projects in this long-term, valley-wide program. This permit identifies two phases and three categories of water recycling projects. During Phase I of the water recycling program, the agencies have proposed first to construct a few small-scale irrigation projects (Group A). This would be followed by startup of a 0.75 MGD demonstration demineralization facility or possibly other salt management projects (Group B). The Phase I projects would be accompanied by a thorough groundwater monitoring program to assess any potential impacts. As specified in the master permit, during the first three years of small-scale project operation, the agencies would complete the salt management plan, as well as the complex engineering reports, design studies and other documentation the Executive Officer will require before approval of any Phase II full-scale, valley-wide irrigation and groundwater recharge projects (Group C). Within five years of start-up of the first new small-scale (Phase I) project, the salt management plan would be implemented to achieve 100 percent mitigation of impacts on groundwater quality from water recycling activities. The salt management plan will be developed beginning in 1995 based on the concept that the effect of each individual project on the main basin groundwater resource is best assessed in the context of the cumulative effects of all such projects, as well as the effects of groundwater management policies and natural conditions. The relative geological homogeneity of the Main Basin lends itself to a mass-balance approach for assessing cumulative impacts. For a planning horizon of 10 years, the salt management plan will define a project or set of projects that will: · Fully mitigate the effects of salt loading due to water recycling on the Main Basin groundwater resource; · Minimize the current trend toward increasing main basin groundwater salinity due to subsurface groundwater inflow, natural recharge; · Ensure that water imports and water recycling will not contribute to the degradation of groundwater quality; and · Protect groundwater beneficial uses. The Salt Management Plan will also provide a technical basis for estimating and allocating salt loading or removal among existing sources and new projects. Accordingly, the SMP includes development of a basin-wide model of salt sources and sinks. Numerical factors, representing (for example) connectivity between groundwater basins and effects of filtering through the soil mantle, will be estimated using the preparer's best professional judgement. The SMP will also provide information needed to support the DHS engineering report for full-scale groundwater recharge projects. Groundwater recharge or conveyance via ephemeral streams or waters of the state is an essential component of the proposed valley-wide, year-round water recycling and groundwater quality management program. Projects subject to NPDES requirements are not authorized under the master water reuse permit. The permit solely identifies the technical reports necessary to support a future NPDES permit application. The Regional Board will consider issuing a separate NPDES permit to the permittees following receipt of a complete NPDES application. IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES The Regional Board supports the concept that water recycling is an essential component for planning the valley's future water supply. Water recycling is particularly important in areas that are dependent on imported water, such as the valley. The Regional Board supports managing the basin-wide salt balance can best be managed through an integrated water-wastewater resource operational plan. Such a plan should combine management of the groundwater basin, water conservation, salt management projects, and water recycling, with and without demineralization. The Regional Board supports the concept of transport and recharge through the valley's ephemeral streams. Recharge of the groundwater basin may be accomplished with imported water, as is done now, or with high-quality recycled water under a future NPDES permit. The year-round, dependable recycled water resource may be appropriate for streamflow augmentation to enhance beneficial uses of the valley's ephemeral streams. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT (EBMUD) AND LOCAL AGENCIES The sewer systems of the seven local agencies in the East Bay communities (Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, Piedmont, and Stege Sanitary District) have had a serious problem with infiltration/inflow (I/I) during the wet weather season. During major storms, the community's sewers receive up to 20 times more flow than in dry weather. As a result, the communities' sewers overflowed to streets, local watercourses, and the Bay, creating a risk to public health and impairing water. The seven local agencies discharging sanitary sewage deliver sewage to EBMUD's facilities, and thus, EBMUD's interceptors and treatment facilities also subject to overflows during storm events. The Regional Board approved a regional approach -- a combination of community collection system improvements and EBMUD capacity improvements - for correcting wet weather overflows. Following the Basin Plan, EBMUD and the agencies established the following priorities to correct this problem: · Substantially reduce or eliminate community sewer overflows with high public health risks; · Substantially reduce or eliminate other community sewer overflows; and · Eliminate or mitigate interceptor overflows. In 1985, the East Bay communities completed a multi-year infiltration/inflow (I/I) study, which proposed a $300 million (1985 dollars) comprehensive sewer rehabilitation and relief line program known as the East Bay Infiltration/Inflow Correction Program (ICP), it required 20 years to implement. In a 1986 enforcement order, the Regional Board accepted the proposed approach and directed the ICP Program to focus on high public health problems. In 1986, all agencies submitted Compliance Plans in response to the cease-and-desist orders issued by the Regional Board. These plans set forth the design and implementation requirements of each agency's I/I Correction Program. EBMUD's and the collection system agencies' programs are designed to handle wastewater and I/I flows for up to a 5-year wet weather event. For rainfall events that have a return frequency greater than 5 years, overflows from the sanitary collection and treatment systems may occur. This approach is consistent with the Basin Plan wet weather overflow requirements (Maintenance Level C) adopted for the I/I Correction and the Wet Weather Facilities Program. The communities have made good progress implementing their ICP eliminating about 60 percent of the high public public health risk overflows. They have also gained a better understanding of how to implement their ICP. This experience has revealed that some of the original planning assumptions underestimated sewer rehabilitation and replacement costs. As a result, the communities revised their programs and the Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Oakland, and Piedmont requested extensions to their compliance schedules by 5 to 10 years. In 1993, the Regional Board amended its enforcement order giving extensions to some communities' compliance schedules. The amended enforcement order also contains revised compliance reporting requirements. As part of the regional approach, EBMUD's contribution is a $145 million (1985 dollars) Wet Weather Program, designed to increase treatment capacity to match the communities' flows. The Wet Weather Program includes an expansion of the main wastewater treatment plant, new storage basins, four new remote wet weather treatment plants, new and ungraded pumping stations, and 7.5 miles of new interceptors. This program will increase EBMUD's peak transport and treatment capacity, without which community sewers would continue to overflow. It will also provide treatment for wet weather discharges and meet or exceed Basin Plan requirements. As of 1995, EBMUD has completed the expansion of the main wastewater treatment plant, all interceptor improvements, construction of the main plant storage basin, and construction of the two principal wet weather treatment facilities (Oakport and Point Isabel). The work remaining includes two pump station improvements, a storage basin, and two wet weather treatment plants. The Wet Weather Program is scheduled for completion in 1998. INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES This section discusses industrial waste discharges to surface waters under the NPDES program. Other industrial waste disposal practices are discussed in a later section entitled "Hazardous and Nonhazardous Waste Disposal" under Groundwater Protection and Management. The Regional Board has permitted over 320 industrial discharges in the region. They can be separated into two general types: process-related wastewaters and groundwater from cleanup activities. There are about 50 discharges of process wastewater; of these, 15 are classified as major discharges and the rest are mostly small discharges of non-contact cooling water and/or runoff. About 270 of the 320 discharges consist solely of treated groundwater from remediation activities at solvent and/or fuel contamination sites. These are minor in flow relative to the major discharges, and are discussed in more detail in an earlier section entitled "Discharge of Treated Groundwater." Additionally, there are over 1,500 industrial facilities discharging only stormwater runoff. The regulation of these discharges is discussed in a later section entitled: "Urban Runoff Management." The 15 major discharges are the most significant individual sources of pollutant loadings from industrial discharges. They are identified and described in Table 4-11, and their locations are shown in Figure 4-2. These industries have all installed treatment facilities that can be considered to provide "best available treatment economically achievable" (BAT), and are in compliance with available BAT standards promulgated by the U.S. EPA for each industrial classification. The Regional Board's goal for regulation of industrial discharges is to continue to move beyond treatment technology-based standards to water quality-based standards. With this shift, the industries are challenged to improve existing or develop new treatment and control technologies to achieve higher levels of protection of receiving waters' beneficial uses. The effect of the Regional Board's regulation has been to drastically reduce the pollutant loadings from industrial sources. But with the focus shifting to water quality-based standards, concerns still do exist in certain areas. For example, a major concern is discharge of selenium from oil refineries. Water quality data from the Regional Monitoring Program and other studies will be necessary to identify areas of most concern and help target future pollutant reduction efforts. PRETREATMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION The Waste Discharge Permitting Program described above focuses on limiting pollutant discharge to the Bay from industrial and municipal treatment systems. In most situations, however, the overall effectiveness of treatment depends on the type and amount of pollutants that enter these POTW or industrial treatment system. Some pollutants may cause upset to or interference with the operation of the treatment plant, sludge contamination, or harm to treatment plant workers and the public if discharged into sewer systems. In general, it is often more economical to reduce overall pollutant loading into treatment systems than to install complex and expensive technology at the plant. The goal of pretreatment is to protect treatment plants, worker health and safety, and the environment from the impact of discharges of certain toxic wastes (eg., explosive and corrosive materials) into sewer systems. The goals of pollution prevention expand beyond the original pretreatment goals and are to: (A) Generally support reducing all pollutant discharges into sewer systems through more efficient use of chemicals and water conservation, recycling, reuse, and waste reduction; and (B) Identify sources and reduce overall discharge of specific pollutants that have been found to impact or threaten beneficial uses. CALIFORNIA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM Each POTW regulates the types of waste discharged into sewer systems leading to its treatment plant. General standards for discharge to POTWs are set by the U.S. EPA for certain types of waste and industrial categories. Each POTW receiving a large amount of industrial waste and/or with a design flow greater than 5 million gallons per day (MGD) is required to develop and implement a pretreatment program, including enforce its own local discharge limits. The goal is to both protect treatment plants and ensure that the POTW is in compliance with its own discharge permit. The Regional Board oversees the implementation of the California Pretreatment Program under the California Water Code and federal Clean Water Act although EPA retains its oversight role and is still actively involved in inspections and enforcement activities. POTW pretreatment programs must include components as specified in federal regulations and program descriptions incorporated into the NPDES permit for each POTW. Specific monitoring and reporting requirements for the 27 POTWs in the San Francisco Bay Region with approved pretreatment programs are contained in one "blanket" NPDES Permit Amendment. This blanket amendment was first issued by the Regional Board in 1980, and later revised in 1984, 1989, and 1995. Major budgeted program tasks for the Regional Board's oversight activities include pretreatment compliance inspections and audits; annual and semiannual report reviews; program modifications, particularly local limits revisions; and enforcement activities. POLLUTION PREVENTION POLICY STATEMENT The Regional Board supports reducing toxic discharges through more efficient use, conservation, recycling, reuse, and waste reduction. The pollution prevention program is designed to eliminate or minimize the discharge of toxic wastes into waters of the region. The program emphasizes pollutant source reduction "upstream" of treatment plants, and techniques such as material recycling, reuse, conservations, material substitution, product substitution, and process modifications. In addition, the program also supports increased water recycling and reuse, wastewater treatment prior to discharge into sewers, and expansion of the Pretreatment Program. This general approach to minimizing waste discharge is a necessary element in the implementation of the State Board's Mass Emission Strategy and will become increasingly important as alternative uses of wastewater are developed. The Regional Board's Waste Minimization Program is a two-tiered program. The first tier is a general program, focused on long-term pollution prevention and overall reduction of toxics entering sewer systems. The general program is structured to allow each POTW to develop and direct pollution prevention efforts in its own service area. It also allows POTW to reduce toxic pollutant loading to their plants and remain in compliance with their discharge permit. The second tier is a more involved, or targeted program aimed at ameliorating existing water quality problems. The goal of targeted programs is to reduce the total amount of a specific pollutant (or pollutants) discharged to specific water bodies. Targeted programs are required when numeric or narrative water quality objectives are exceeded and beneficial uses are impaired or threatened. Both programs will take multimedia concerns into account by coordinating with other relevant regulatory programs related to air and land disposal. All POTWs with an approved pretreatment program and all major industrial dischargers that are not required to implement a targeted program are required to develop and implement a general pollution prevention program within their jurisdiction. When the Pollution Prevention Program was initiated, the largest dischargers (all POTWs with an average dry weather discharge over 10 MGD and all major industrials) were required to prepare and submit for Board approval an initial plan for general pollution prevention by July 1, 1992. Smaller POTWs were placed on a slightly longer schedule and required to submit plans by January 1, 1993. Dischargers submit mid-year progress reports and a comprehensive annual report, discussing progress and accomplishments with respect to the elements outlined below, possible program changes, and future program developments. GENERAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS The general program is designed to allow individual POTWs to develop and direct long-term waste minimization efforts according to local needs and is more flexible than targeted programs. General programs should contain the following elements: (a) Pretreatment program review and enhancement. This should include a general review of opportunities for incorporating waste reduction goals into inspections, enforcement, and permitting (such as increased inspection, improved process flow measurements, etc.) In addition, previously unregulated types of industrial and commercial facilities that discharge pollutants of concern to the POTW should be identified. Each general program should include provisions for two additional categories of discharge that are not covered under the federal regulations (such as waste oil disposal, household products, car and truck washing operations, medical and dental facilities, etc.). (b) Waste minimization audits. Prioritize need for and conduct audits of industrial users. The criteria for prioritization should include discharge of pollutants of concern, volume of flow, industrial user compliance, and opportunities for waste reduction. (c) Public outreach. Design and conduct public education programs aimed at publicizing appropriate household waste management, including advertising campaigns and household hazardous waste programs. (d) Coordination with other programs involving recycling, reuse, and source reduction of toxic chemicals, such as air, hazardous waste, and land disposal. This might include developing programs for joint inspections and sharing in enforcement activities. (e) A monitoring program specifically designed to measure the effectiveness of waste minimization activities in reducing toxic loads to the receiving watershed, air, or land via sludge disposal. TARGETED POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS The purpose of targeted pollution prevention programs is to reduce the total amount of specific toxic pollutants being discharged to POTWs through source reduction and recycling. Targeted programs are more intensive versions of the general programs and are focused only on one or a select number of pollutants. In those areas of the watershed or estuary system identified as exceeding water quality objectives or having impaired beneficial uses, dischargers that are significant contributors to the water quality problem will be identified and required to participate in a targeted waste minimization program. NPDES permits for each identified POTW will be amended by the Regional Board to require the development and implementation of appropriate pollution prevention measures within a given time schedule. The first phase of a targeted pollution prevention program involves quantifying the amount of the pollutants in question being discharged to the POTW from (a) regulated industrial users, (b) commercial facilities, (c) water supplies, and (d) domestic sewage. It may also be necessary to conduct further monitoring of pollutants of concern in water, sediment, and biota by identified dischargers to POTW systems and/or POTWs at and near their discharge locations in order to more precisely determine associated effects. The second phase of the targeted program is to initiate reductions in pollutant loading, focusing on the most effective and economic control measures first. These reductions may be achievable through focused public outreach, technical information transfer regarding effective management techniques, or installation of appropriate technologies. The targeted program shall include all elements of the general program, expanding where appropriate to maximize the reduction of the targeted pollutants. Targeted programs may also require other options such as performance-based effluent concentration limits and mass limitations for the pollutants of concern, in order to attain water quality objectives in the receiving water body. Phased implementation of the program will be carried out in coordination with the development and implementation of other tasks under the Mass Emissions Strategy required in the State Board's Pollutant Policy Document. DIRECT INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM Industrial entities discharging directly to receiving waters instead of public sewer systems are also subject to similar pollution prevention requirements. Overall source reduction and recycling of hazardous wastes, including audits, planning, and reporting to the Department of Toxic Substance Control is required under the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989, (CCR Title 22, Ch 31). Rather than require separate pollution prevention programs, these dischargers will be asked to submit copies of the required pollution prevention reports (those sections specifically addressing liquid waste and reduction of pollutants discharged to water) to the Regional Board. Initial plans for pollution prevention, including detailed descriptions of tasks and schedules, were submitted by these dischargers in 1992. In the event that existing pollution prevention reports do not adequately address reduction of toxic pollutants in effluent, the Regional Board will require additional information. In cases where water quality problems exist or where beneficial uses are impaired or threatened by direct industrial dischargers, focused pollution prevention programs similar to POTW targeted programs will also be required. In cases where staff feel that independent audits (as opposed to audits conducted by the involved companies) are justified, the issue will be brought before the Regional Board. The effort should result in the reduction or elimination of specific pollutants of concern. SURFACE WATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT -- NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES During periods of wet weather, rain carries pollutants and sediment from all parts of the watershed into streams and the larger Estuary. These diffuse sources of pollutants range from parking lots and bare earth at construction sites to mining sites and farm enclosures. In addition to runoff from land, there are diffuse pollutant sources associated with maritime activity such as dredging, wastes from vessels, and accidents such as oil spills. The total amount of pollutants entering aquatic systems from these diffuse, nonpoint sources is now generally considered to be greater than from any other source. Protecting the region's aquatic systems from impacts associated with these diffuse sources is a long-term challenge and requires very different approaches than the control of pollutants from point sources. Nonpoint source pollution management involves three basic elements: (1) changes in existing operating practices to minimize the potential of untreated wastes reaching aquatic systems, (2) collection and treatment of wastes, and (3) prohibition of waste-generating practices. The degree of changes required to control or eliminate nonpoint source pollution depends on several factors, including the magnitude of the pollution problem and the sensitivity of exposed aquatic systems. In order to identify and apply the most effective and economically efficient control measures, thorough investigations relating receiving water conditions to specific nonpoint sources are necessary. In many cases, however, specific water quality problems are already known to be generally linked to nonpoint source pollution, but sufficient information is not available to pinpoint the exact cause-and-effect relationship. Thus, the first step in nonpoint source management is often to conduct these investigations and refine control plans as information becomes available. Concurrently, general improvements may be gained from "good practice" techniques. The Regional Board's nonpoint source control programs are designed around very specific sets of problems, each of which involves a unique set of institutions and technical issues. This section describes each separate program. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT During periods of rain, water flushes sediment and pollutants from urbanized parts of the Estuary (Figure 4-3) into storm drain systems. These drains discharge directly to surface waters within the region, except in San Francisco where stormwater is mixed with sewage and directed to the treatment plant. Urban runoff contributes significant quantities of total suspended solids, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other pollutants to the waters of the region. The impacts of pollutants in urban runoff on aquatic systems are many and varied. For example, small soil particles washed into streams can smother spawning grounds and marsh habitat. Lead and petroleum hydrocarbons washed off from roadways and parking lots may cause toxic responses in aquatic life and exemplify another kind of threat. The US EPA found levels of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in urban runoff exceeded freshwater acute aquatic life criteria in 9 to 50 percent of samples taken across the country. The chronic criteria for these metals, beryllium, cyanide, mercury, and silver were exceeded in at least 10 percent of the samples. In the San Francisco Bay Region, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has found consistently high levels of hydrocarbons in urban runoff. The Regional Board's urban runoff management program focuses on reducing pollutant transport through stormwater drain systems into surface waters. In general, measures that will effectively limit storm drain pollutant discharge will also limit direct runoff of pollutants into creeks, streams, and lakes. The program is structured around the municipalities and local agencies responsible for maintaining storm drain systems, and three classes of activities that are responsible for significant amounts of pollutant influx to those public storm drain systems: highways under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), industrial activities, and construction on areas larger than 5 acres. Within each of these program areas, the Regional Board's urban runoff management approach emphasizes general, long-term planning to avoid any increases in pollutant loading, and more structured, intensive approaches when existing water quality problems require immediate action. A large part of the Regional Board's work in managing urban runoff involves supporting local planning and investigation. The program includes: · Organizing local ad hoc task forces within each hydrologic sub-region (see maps in Chapter 2) to facilitate investigations and design of appropriate control strategies. These task forces include representatives from local government, point source dischargers, local industries, the Regional Board, and U.S. EPA. · Developing cooperative investigation and control strategies utilizing the expertise and resources of point source dischargers in each of the receiving water segments. · Supporting research by the San Francisco Estuary Institute, ABAG, U.S. EPA, and others entities to better define the impacts of urban runoff discharges. · Participating on the State Board Stormwater Quality Task Force and the development and implementation of a statewide urban stormwater best management practices manual. · Working with other agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to ensure that transportation related strategies and plans will reduce the impact on receiving waters from transportation system runoff discharges. MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTANT DISCHARGE FROM STORM DRAINS The Regional Board's strategy for managing pollutants and sediment in urban runoff entering and being discharged public storm drain systems is two-tiered. All cities and counties are encouraged to develop and implement voluntary programs aimed at pollution prevention throughout the region (Baseline Control Program). Selected cites and counties, by virtue of the amount of pollutants being discharged from their storm drain system, impact of those discharges on receiving waters, or population, are required to develop pollution prevention programs and take steps to reduce runoff into drain systems (Comprehensive Control Program). The first major step in addressing pollutant loading to public storm drains was to compile basic information on existing systems. A Board survey of local agencies owning or responsible for storm drain systems and flood control agencies had limited and often dated information on the storm drain systems that they own or manage. In addition, flow and water quality data for storm drain system discharge were virtually nonexistent. The survey also found that current management of storm drain systems is primarily focused on flood control, with storm drainage inlets, lines, and catch basins scheduled for cleaning annually or on an as-needed basis for flood prevention purposes. BASELINE CONTROL PROGRAM All local agencies, including special districts, in the cities and counties in the region (see Table 4-11) that own or have maintenance responsibility for storm drain systems should develop and implement a baseline control program. The goal of the baseline control programs is to prevent any increase in pollutants entering these systems. To a large extent, this goal can be achieved by including consideration of pollutant runoff into storm drain systems in the course of local planning efforts and encouraging "good practice" techniques. Components of baseline control programs should include: review and update of operation and maintenance programs for storm drain systems; development and adoption of ordinances or other planning procedures (such as CEQA review) to avoid and control pollutant and sediment loading to runoff as part of the normal design and construction of new and significant redevelopment (both during construction and after construction is completed); and education measures to inform the public, commercial entities, and industries on the proper use and disposal of materials and waste and correct practices of urban runoff control. Baseline control programs should also include surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities to ensure and document implementation. Similarly, flood control agencies should consider the impact of their projects on receiving waters. Flood management projects, facilities, or operations should be designed, operated, and maintained to reduce the amount of pollutants in stormwater discharges as well as achieving flood control objectives. The Regional Board will support and encourage the development and implementation of baseline control programs in cooperation with cities and counties. Board staff may provide technical guidance and support, facilitate ad-hoc working groups including people with expertise and experience in POTW pollution prevention programs and local hazardous waste management, and participate in development of model ordinances. The programs should be coordinated with POTW and industrial pollution prevention programs and local hazardous materials management programs. In addition, the Regional Board will focus its surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities on and review Environmental Impact Reports on new development and significant redevelopment and focus its surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities to support implementation of effective baseline control programs. The effectiveness of a municipality's baseline control program will also be considered when issuing NPDES permits for construction activities pursuant to the Regional Board's Construction Activity Control Program. The Regional Board requires the local agencies, special districts, and municipalities listed in Table 4-11 to submit annual reports (pursuant to Section 13225(c ) of the California Water Code) describing their baseline control programs. These reports are due on September 1 of each year and should describe: · Operation and maintenance activities associated with the storm drain system; · Master planning procedures and documentation of activities associated with control; · A list of all new development and significant redevelopment projects with documentation that urban runoff control measures have been required and are being implemented; · Documentation of educational measures; · Documentation of surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities; and · A qualitative evaluation of program effectiveness, including, but not limited to, program accomplishments, funds expended, staff hours utilized, an overall evaluation, and plans for the upcoming year. To the extent that voluntary implementation of baseline control programs is not realized, the Regional Board will act, where necessary, to require individual local agencies to investigate specific runoff discharges, quantify pollutant loads, and identify and implement control strategies for pollutant runoff into storm drains. Where necessary, require individual local agencies to file a Report of Waste Discharge or NPDES permit application for the implementation of baseline control programs. Cities and counties should review and revise their planning procedures and develop or revise comprehensive master plans to assure that increases in pollutant loading associated with newly developed and significantly redeveloped areas are, to the maximum extent practicable, limited. Areas that are in the process of development, or redevelopment offer the greatest potential for utilizing the full range of structural and non-structural control measures to limit increases in pollutant loads. Comprehensive planning must be used to incorporate these measures in the process of developing. Cities and counties should fully utilize their authority under CEQA to assure implementation of control measures at all proposed development and significant redevelopment projects. COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL PROGRAM The goal of the Regional Board's comprehensive control program is to remediate existing water quality problems and prevent new problems associated with urban runoff. To achieve this, the program focuses on reducing current levels of pollutant loading to storm drains to the maximum extent practicable. The Regional Board's comprehensive program is designed to be consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR 122-124) and is implemented by issuing NPDES permits to owners and operators of large storm drain systems and systems discharging significant amounts of pollutants. The conditions of each NPDES stormwater permit require that entities responsible for the systems develop and implement comprehensive control programs. The regulations authorize the issuance of system-wide or jurisdiction-wide permits and they effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges to storm drains. They also require listed municipalities to implement control measures to reduce pollutants in urban stormwater runoff discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The Regional Board will, where necessary, require stormwater discharge permits for discharges not cited in the regulations which are a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the region. The comprehensive urban runoff control program includes all elements of the baseline control program designed to prevent increases in pollutant loading. To reduce current pollutant loading to the maximum extent practicable, the program also includes: · Characterization of urban runoff discharges to the extent necessary to support program development; · Elimination of illicit connections and illegal dumping into storm drains; · Development and implementation of measures to reduce pollutant runoff associated with the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer; · Development and implementation of measures to operate and maintain public highways in a manner that reduces pollutants in runoff; and · Effective pollution reduction measures may include educational activities such as painting signs on storm drain inlets and regulation of activities such as application of pesticides in public right-of-ways. Each NPDES stormwater permit issued by the Regional Board will require an annual report evaluating the effectiveness of its comprehensive urban runoff control program. At a minimum, quantitative monitoring, a detailed accounting of program accomplishments (including funds expended and staff hours utilized), an overall evaluation of the program, and plans and schedules for the upcoming year shall be used to assess effectiveness. The Regional Board's urban runoff control program is still relatively new. Table 4-11 lists the entities in each area that have implemented comprehensive control programs. In addition, there is a need to develop and implement similar programs in the urban and rapidly developing areas of Solano County and the cities of San Rafael, Novato, Petaluma, Napa, and Benicia, and the Ports of Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. Urban runoff discharges from these areas are considered significant sources of pollutants to waters of the region and may be causing or threatening to cause violation of water quality objectives. The Regional Board intends to consider similar action for these at a later time. The City and County of San Francisco is not permitted under the storm water program because it has a combined (sanitary and storm) sewer system operating in accordance with existing NPDES permits. The Regional Board will conduct surveillance activities and provide overall direction to verify and oversee implementation of urban runoff control programs. Technical guidance for prevention activities, the identification, assignment, and implementation of control measures, and monitoring will be developed. HIGHWAY RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAM An essential component of reducing pollutant loading to storm drain systems involves managing runoff from public roads. While many roads fall under the jurisdiction of entities responsible for storm drain systems, public highways are controlled by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In order to ensure that all public highways are maintained to reduce pollutant runoff, the Regional Board issued a stormwater NPDES permit to Caltrans in August, 1994. The permit requires implementation of a highway Stormwater Management Plan which addresses the design, construction, and maintenance of highway facilities relative to reducing pollutant runoff discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The highway runoff management plan shall include litter control, management of pesticide/herbicide use, reducing direct discharges, reducing runoff velocity, grassed channels, curb elimination, catch basin maintenance, appropriate street cleaning, establishing and maintaining vegetation, infiltration practices, and detention/retention practices. In addition, the plan must include monitoring the effectiveness of control measures, runoff water quality, and pollutant loads. When possible, Caltrans is expected to coordinate with existing agencies and programs related to the reduction of pollutants in highway runoff. INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY CONTROL PROGRAM Industrial stormwater sources are subject to best available technology (BAT) economically-based standards. Federal regulations require stormwater permits for any site where industrial activity takes place (or has in the past), and materials are exposed to stormwater. The definitions of industrial activities subject to these permits (provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 122.26, revised December 18, 1992) are incorporated by reference into this plan. This incorporation by reference is prospective including future changes as they take effect. The Regional Board will require an NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater from all industrial facilities where such activities occur. These permits apply to the discharge from any system used to collect and convey stormwater at industrial sites. These sites include, but are not limited to, industrial plant yards, access roads and rail lines, material and refuse handling areas, storage areas (including tank farms) and areas where significant amounts of materials remain from past activity. Permits are issued both to privately and publicly (federal, state, and municipal) owned facilities. The Regional Board's permitting strategy for industrial facilities is based on a four-tier set of priorities for issuing permits. At a minimum, all permits will require compliance with all local agency requirements. General permits for industrial facilities will not be less stringent than individual permits. TIER I: GENERAL PERMITTING The majority of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity in the region will be covered under a general permit issued by the State Board in November, 1991. TIER II: SPECIFIC WATERSHED PERMITTING In some watersheds, water quality has been impacted by stormwater discharges from facilities associated with industrial activity. Facilities within these watersheds will be targeted for individual stormwater permits or regulation under watershed-specific general permits. The Regional Board issued a general permit for industrial activity in the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to South San Francisco Bay to support the county's comprehensive control program and will consider a similar general permit for Alameda County at a later time. TIER III: INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC PERMITTING Specific industrial categories will be targeted for individual or industry-specific general permits. For example, the Regional Board issued a general permit for storm water discharges from boatyards in August 1992. The use of general permits is intended to alleviate the administrative burden of issuing storm water permit for individual industrial facilities. In some cases, such as large U.S. Department of Defense facilities, individual sites or classes of sites may be significant sources of pollutants, and individual permit(s) specific to these classes of sites are warranted. The Regional Board considers stormwater discharges from automotive operations, including gas stations, auto repair shops, auto body shops, dealerships, and mobile fleet-washing businesses to be significant sources of pollutants to waters in the region. Local agencies implementing comprehensive control programs are addressing these discharges through ordinances as part of their comprehensive control programs. The effectiveness of local measures will be assessed before the Regional Board considers permitting these under a separate industrial permit. TIER IV: FACILITY-SPECIFIC PERMITTING A variety of factors will be used to target specific facilities for individual permits, such as amount and characteristics of runoff, size of facility, and contribution to existing water quality problems. Permitted individual facilities will be required to identify "hot areas" where runoff may contact pollutants; activities that may release pollutants to runoff; segregate stormwater discharges from the "hot areas;" and identify and implement control measures for "hot areas.” In addition, permittees will be required to eliminate all non-stormwater discharges to storm drain systems unless authorized by an NPDES permit or determined not to be a source of pollutants requiring an NPDES permit. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CONTROL PROGRAM The Regional Board will require an NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater from construction activities involving disturbance of five acres or greater total land area or are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs greater than five acres of total land area. The majority of construction activity discharges in the region will be permitted under a general permit issued by the State Board in 1992. Permit conditions address pollutant and waste discharges occurring during construction activities and the discharge of pollutants in runoff after construction is completed. Permit conditions are consistent with the Regional Board's erosion and sediment control policy (Resolution No. 80-5) and consistent with local agency ordinance and regulatory programs. The intent of the permit is not to supersede local programs, but rather to complement local requirements. This will require local agencies to effectively address construction activities through their early planning, CEQA processes, and implementation of development control measures as part of their baseline or comprehensive control programs. AGRICULTURAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT Agricultural wastewaters and the effect of agricultural operations must be considered in terms of land use practices and controls developed in the agricultural element of land use plans. The activities of primary importance to water quality in this basin are animal confinement and irrigation practices. Agricultural pesticide use and limits on fertilizer application are not specifically considered because of the limited applicability in this region. ANIMAL CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS Animal confinement operations such as kennels, horse stables, poultry ranches, and dairies, raise or shelter animals in high densities. Wastes from such facilities can contain significant amounts of pathogens, oxygen-depleting organic matter, nitrogen compounds, and other suspended and dissolved solids. In addition, erosion is also a common problem associated with these facilities. Runoff of storm or wash water can carry waste and sediment and degrade receiving surface waters. Groundwaters can also be degraded when water containing these wastes percolates into aquifers. The risk of water quality degradation increases during the rainy season when animal waste containment and treatment ponds are often overloaded. Minimum design and management standards for the protection of water quality from confined animal operations are promulgated in Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 6. These regulations prohibit the discharge of facility wash water, animal wastes, and stormwater runoff from animal confinement areas into waters of the state. They also specify minimum design and waste management standards including: · Collection of all wastewaters; · Retention of water within manured areas during a 25-year, 24 hour storm; · Use of paving or impermeable soils in manure storage areas; and · Application of manures and wastewaters on land at reasonable rates. The Regional Board has the authority to enforce these regulations through Waste Discharge Requirements. Facilities such as the dairies located in Marin and Sonoma counties and horse boarding stables are typical of animal confinement operations within the region. DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENT Much of the land within the Tomales Bay, Petaluma River, Napa, and Sonoma Valley watersheds is used for agricultural purposes. Within these watersheds, a significant number of livestock are housed and grazed. Animal waste can cause water quality problems through runoff into surface and groundwaters of the state. Stockpiled manure, washwater, and stormwater runoff from corrals, pens, and other animal confinement areas are potential sources of water pollution due to their high bacteria levels (the coliform group used as indicators), ammonia, nitrate and suspended solids. Detergents, disinfectants, and other biocides commonly used may also contribute to the toxicity of animal wastes. These constituents can be extremely deleterious to fish and other forms of aquatic life. High bacterial levels have had an adverse impact on shellfish resources in the region (i.e., commercial shellfish harvesting in Tomales Bay). Problems facing the dairy industry include manure containment during the rainy season, appropriate manure dispersal on pasture land, and implementation of range management practices aimed at water quality protection. The availability of ample farm and pastureland is therefore extremely important in managing animal waste. Since the 1970s, the cooperative relationship between the Regional Board and the dairy industry has been an important aspect of dairy waste control. That relationship has been instrumental in the construction of dairy waste handling, treatment, and disposal facilities in the late 1970s. However, proper waste control management is just as important as the physical facility. Management techniques include routing wash water and drainage to impervious holding and storage areas, constructing manure storage areas controlling both subsurface infiltration and runoff, stormwater overflow protection for retention basins, and applying manures and wastewater on land at reasonable rates for maximum plant uptake of nitrogen. Poor practices that have led to water quality problems in the past include: inadequate maintenance and operation of facilities; overloading treatment and storage facilities; increase of herd size without commensurate additions to waste handling facilities; poor range management practices; and simple neglect of seasonal waste management responsibilities. DAIRY WASTE REGULATION Both the regulation and the support services for the dairy industry involve several federal, state, and local agencies. Each has its particular role and mission, but all share the goal of protecting the beneficial uses of state waters while assisting dairies in complying with regulations while conducting their day-to-day business. The following agencies play a direct role in dairy waste management and regulation: REGULATORY · California Regional Water Quality Control Board · California Department of Fish and Game SUPPORT SERVICES · Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services · U.S. Department of Agriculture -- Soil Conservation Service · University of California Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor · County Farm Bureaus · Resource Conservation Districts To address dairy waste management concerns, dairy operators in Marin and Sonoma Counties have formed a Dairy Waste Committee. The Dairy Waste Committee supports dairy operators in their efforts to solve waste control problems and locate technical and financial assistance. The Committee serves as a vehicle through which the Regional Boards and California Department of Fish and Game can disseminate information on water quality regulations and requirements. This committee does and will continue to play an important role in any successful waste control program. Additionally, the Southern Sonoma and Marin County Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) have a cooperative, voluntary program in which a farmer agrees to use the land within its capabilities, develop a conservation plan, and apply conservation practices to meet objectives and technical standards of the RCDs. In turn, the RCD agrees to furnish the farmer with information and technical assistance in order to carry out the conservation plan. REGIONAL BOARD PROGRAM PERMITTING/WAIVER OF PERMITS Generally, discharges are subject to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) issued by the Regional Board. However, the Regional Board may waive WDRs where such a waiver is not against the public interest and still assures the protection of beneficial uses of state waters. For the present, the Regional Board has been waiving WDRs for dairies where proper waste control facilities are in place and management practices are in conformance with the California Code of Regulations - Title 23, Article 3, Chapter 15 (Discharge of Waste to Land). CONTINUING WASTE CONTROL PLANNING In 1990, the State Board established a Dairy Waste Task Force to look at the dairy industry statewide and develop standards for dairy regulation. The main emphasis has been on developing better communication and guidance materials for the industry; developing a dairy survey form to help the Regional Boards determine if a dairy qualifies for a waiver from WDRs; determining the number and location of dairies; develop more uniform WDRs; and preparing an outreach program aimed at the dairy industry, local government, and the public. The Regional Board directs the Executive Officer to continue the following staff activities: · Work with the dairy industry through the local dairy waste committees, County Farm Bureaus, RCDs, and other local/state agencies in obtaining cooperative correction of dairy waste problems. · Recommend adoption of WDRs in those cases where water quality objectives for waters within an agricultural watershed are consistently exceeded, or where corrective action is unsuccessful in eliminating either the short- or long-term water quality problems or threats. The Regional Board may choose to take enforcement action through the issuance of a Clean-up and Abatement Order or assess monetary penalties in those cases where dairy practices have resulted in or threaten to cause a condition of pollution or nuisance in surface waters through the issuance of Administrative Civil Liability or referral to the California Attorney General's Office. · Monitor the compliance of dairy waste management programs with regional goals and implement the recommendations of the State Dairy Waste Task Force. IRRIGATION OPERATIONS An increase in the concentration of soluble salts contained in percolating irrigation water is an unavoidable result of consumptive use of water. Salt management within soils and groundwater is considered separate from water management, but is closely related to drainage control and wastewater operations. For irrigated agriculture to continue in the future, acceptable levels of salts in soils and groundwaters must be controlled. Maintenance of a favorable salt balance, that being a reasonable balance between the import and export of salts from individual basins, must be considered to control increases in mineral content. This is especially applicable for the Livermore and Santa Clara Valley groundwater basins. The ultimate consequences of regulatory action for irrigation operations must be carefully assessed. The "no-degradation" concept in connection with salt levels is not appropriate in all circumstances. A concept of minimal degradation might be considered in some areas. It would need to be coupled with management of the surface and underground water supplies in order to assure acceptable degradation effects. If minimal degradation is considered, it can be offset by either recharge and replenishment of groundwater basins with higher quality water that will furnish dilution to the added salts, or by drainage of degraded waters at a sufficient rate to maintain low salts and salts leaving the basin. To aid recharge and dilution operations, additional winter runoff can be stored in surface reservoirs for subsequent use with either surface stream or groundwater basin quantity/quality management. RECLAMATION POLICY STATEMENT To date in this region, disposal of most municipal and industrial wastewater has primarily involved discharges into the region's watersheds and the San Francisco estuary system. With growing awareness of the impacts of toxic discharges, the drought, future urbanization, and growth on the local aquatic habitat, there is an increasing need to look for other sources of water. Increasingly, conservation and reclamation will be needed to deal with these long-term water issues. The Regional Board recognizes that people of the San Francisco Bay Region are interested in developing the capacity to conserve and reclaim water to supplement existing water supplies, meet future water requirements, and restore the region's watersheds and estuary system. Disposal of wastewater to inland, estuarine or coastal waters is not considered a permanent solution where the potential exists for conservation and reclamation. The Constitution of California, Article X, declares that, because of the conditions prevailing in the state, the general welfare requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is in the interest of the people and for the public welfare. California Water Code, Section 275, states that the Regional Board shall take all appropriate proceedings or actions to prevent waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use. In section 13550, the Legislature defines the use of potable domestic water for the irrigation of greenbelt areas, including but not limited to, cemeteries, golf courses, parks, and highway landscaped areas is a waste or an unreasonable use of such water within the meaning of Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution when suitable reclaimed water is available. In section 13510, the Legislature states that the development of facilities to reclaim water is in the interest of the people of the state. In this section of the Water Code, the Legislature intended that the state undertake all possible steps to encourage development of water reclamation facilities so that reclamation may be a significant source to meet the growing water needs of the state. Reclamation is defined as the process of augmenting the long-term dependable yield of the state's water supply by recapturing or treating wastewater, degraded or contaminated groundwater, or other nonpotable water for beneficial uses; its transportation to the place of use; and its actual use. Finally, Section 13225(I) mandates that the Regional Board encourage regional planning and action for water quality control. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS If reclamation is to be made feasible and efficiently utilize the water resources of the state, there are certain issues that will have to be addressed on a state-wide and regional basis. More than 850 reclamation projects are currently operating successfully in California. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and local health and regulatory agencies have been integrally involved in both the development and operation of all of these projects. In the past decade, there have been significant improvements in the design and operation of reclamation facilities and in health monitoring and analysis. As a result, the DTSC is currently revising the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Wastewater Reclamation Criteria regulations to make it consistent with existing capabilities. These revisions should allow for the expansion of possible uses for reclaimed water. In order to implement reclamation more effectively, it is recommended that: 1) research into environmental and health effects be conducted in those areas where information is still lacking or inconclusive; 2) cooperation and participation be sought from professionals from both the water reclamation industry and the health and regulatory agencies to assure that the criteria developed are both attainable and appropriate; 3) uniform guidelines be jointly developed and implemented by state and local health and regulatory officials; and 4) guidelines and regulations be allowed to evolve in a timely fashion to reflect technological advances and operational experience. In order to uphold the state's Antidegradation Policy, reclamation project requirements and water quality objectives, should be developed that consider the public health risks protected under Title 22 and potential environmental risks that may impact water quality and beneficial uses. The State Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State and Regional Boards must develop discharge standards and treatment requirements for reclaimed water used for groundwater recharge requirements as well as recharge site requirements. In addition, groundwater quality objectives set in the Basin Plan must be updated and expanded to include constituents of concern, particularly metals and organic chemicals. The Regional Board adopted Order No. 91-042, which is incorporated by reference into this plan, to allow certain pre-approved waste dischargers to issue their own permits for the use of reclaimed water. Specific guidelines are included in the Order. Uses are limited to those that do not have unrestricted access or exposure. Requirements conform to statewide reclamation criteria established by DTSC as prescribed in Title 22, Sections 60301-60335, California Code of Regulations. Enforcing the water quality nondegradation standards will require better monitoring and assessment of wastewater and ambient water quality. Those entities implementing any major use of reclaimed water will need to implement and regulate consistent monitoring programs. SOURCE QUALITY CONTROL The quality of influent to a reclamation plant affects the quality of effluent production, particularly in those communities that import high-quality surface water from the Sierra Nevada. Reclamation treatment and costs are directly dependent on the quality of influent into the plant. The quality of this influent depends on the quality of the water supply and the quality of the waste discharges to the reclamation plant. Reclamation requires that industrial pretreatment and pollution prevention programs be sufficient to remove toxic constituents. Reclamation also requires adequate monitoring and enforcement. Additionally, maximum recycling and separate treatment of waste by industries should be encouraged where feasible. Educational programs for industries and households on the appropriate handling and disposal of potentially toxic materials should be part of any pretreatment and pollution prevention program. GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION Implementation of reclamation projects requires the involvement, approval, and support of a number of agencies, including state and local health departments, the Regional Board, local POTWs and water districts, and land use planning agencies. Interagency coordination must be a priority of all parties involved in reclamation. Failure to coordinate activities can result in the inability to carry out reclamation projects in a timely, consistent, and cost-effective manner. The Regional Board seeks cooperation and participation of professionals from the water reclamation industry and the water, health, and regulatory agencies to assure the development of criteria that are both attainable and appropriate. To facilitate inter-/intra-regional reclamation projects, interagency coordination is necessary when the wastewater agency produces reclaimed water outside of an interested water purveyor's service area. Effective communication and cooperation between agencies regarding distribution and service is vital and should begin early in the planning process. This would assure to the water purveyor that there will be no duplication of service, enable interagency agreement on project development and implementation, and help avoid any unnecessary delays that could jeopardize a project. Future reclamation prospects are also dependent on effective coordination between reclamation agencies and land use planning agencies. Many reclamation ordinances in the state require dual distribution systems in new high rise buildings and other new developments. This requires that a land use planning agency mandate the use of reclaimed water as a condition of development approval. In addition, efforts of regulatory agencies, such as the State Board, Regional Board, DOHS, and County Health Departments, should be coordinated to minimize conflicts or confusion when projects are permitted. MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SLUDGE MANAGEMENT One particular type of solid waste is wastewater sludge, a by-product of wastewater treatment. Raw sludge usually contains 93 to 99.5 percent water, with the balance being solids that were present in the wastewater and that were added to or cultured by wastewater treatment processes. Most POTWs treat the sludge prior to ultimate use or disposal. Normally this treatment consists of dewatering and/or digestion. In some cases, such as at the Palo Alto treatment plant, the sludge is incinerated. Treated and untreated sludges often contain high concentrations of toxic metals and often contain significant amounts of toxic organic pollutants and pathogens. The storage and disposal of municipal sludges on land can result in degradation of ground and surface water if not properly performed. Therefore, sludge handling and disposal must be regulated. On February 19, 1993, the U.S. EPA promulgated national standards regulating the use or disposal of non-hazardous sewage sludge (40 CFR Part 503, et.seq.). Part 503 regulations primarily affect sewage sludge (also known as "biosolids") use and disposal by incineration, surface disposal, and land application (including distribution and marketing). Part 503 regulations also establish pollutant limits, operational and maintenance practices, monitoring frequency, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The federal definition of sewage sludge includes domestic septage (from septic tanks, cesspool, portable toilet, etc.). Disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) is not considered surface disposal. Thus, the MSWLF is not regulated by the national sewage sludge program. The State of California has neither requested nor been granted the delegation of the federal sewage sludge management program at this time. Therefore, U.S. EPA will be responsible for implementation and enforcement of the national rule. Under the rule, facilities that must apply for a permit include the generators, treaters and disposers of sewage sludge. Nevertheless, 40 CFR Part 503 has, for the most part, been written to be self-implementing. This means that anyone who uses or disposes of sewage sludge regulated by 40 CFR Part 503 must comply with all the provisions of the rule, whether or not a permit has been issued. State regulations of the handling and disposal of sludge are contained in Chapter 15 and DTSC standards for hazardous waste management. Prior to promulgation of the national rule, sewage sludge facilities were regulated by the Regional Board through the issuance of site-specific waste discharge requirements. The Regional Board may continue to regulate certain sewage sludge facilities when believed to be necessary for the protection of water quality. ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS As the population of the Bay Area increases, demand for new development increases. In many cases, new development is occurring close to sewerage agencies. More often, however, development is being proposed in outlying areas that cannot be served by existing sewerage agencies. In those instances, new discrete sewerage systems are being proposed (i.e., new systems separate from existing public sewerage systems). Today there are more than 110,000 septic tank soil adsorption systems (septic systems) and cesspools throughout the Bay Area, and approximately 1,000 new septic systems are approved each year. In response to these development pressures, the Regional Board adopted a Policy on Discrete Facilities in 1978. The policy set forth the actions the Regional Board will take with respect to proposals for individual or community sewerage systems serving new residential development. An important provision of the policy required the development of guidelines for the control of individual wastewater treatment and disposal systems. The Regional Board's policy and guidelines are presented below. POLICY ON DISCRETE SEWERAGE FACILITIES The policy enumerates the following principles, which apply to all wastewater discharges: · The system must be designed and constructed so as to be capable of preventing pollution or contamination of the waters of the state or creating nuisance for the life of the development; · The system must be operated, maintained, and monitored so as to continually prevent pollution or contamination of the waters of the state and the creation of a nuisance; · The responsibility for both of the above must be clearly and legally assumed by a public entity with the financial and legal capability to assure that the system provides protection to the quality of the waters of the state for the life of the development. The policy also makes the following requests of city and county governments: · That the use of new discrete sewerage systems be prohibited where existing community sewerage systems are reasonably available; · That the use of individual septic systems for any subdivision of land be prohibited unless the governing body having jurisdiction determines that the use of the septic systems is in the best public interest and that the existing quality of the waters of the state is maintained consistent with the State Board's Resolution 68-16; and · That the cumulative impacts of individual disposal system discharges be considered as part of the approval process for development. Finally, the policy also requires that a public entity assume legal authority and responsibility for new community wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Community systems are defined as collection sewers plus treatment facilities serving multiple discharges under separate ownership, such as package plants or common septic tanks, plus disposal facilities such as evaporation ponds or leachfields. This policy requires local governments, during the approval process, to consider either the formation of a new government entity or the assumption of this responsibility by an existing entity. INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM GUIDELINES Since the early 1960s, the Regional Board, pursuant to Section 13296 of the California Water Code, adopted waivers for reporting certain septic system discharges in all Bay Area counties except San Francisco. In its policy, the Regional Board required the development of individual system guidelines concentrating mainly on septic systems. These guidelines provided information on system design and construction, operation and maintenance, and the conduct of cumulative impact studies. On April 17, 1979, the Regional Board adopted Resolution No. 79-5: Minimum Guidelines for the Control of Individual Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (Minimum Guidelines). The guidelines concentrated mainly on septic systems, providing information on system design and construction, operation and maintenance, and the conduct of cumulative impact studies. ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Although the conventional septic system has long been one of the most reliable methods of on-site sewage disposal, there are widespread conditions throughout the region that restrict its use, including conditions of high groundwater and shallow or has been active interest and research in the development of alternative means of on-site sewage disposal techniques to overcome these adverse conditions. One such alternative is the mound design development by the University of Wisconsin at Madison. It should be pointed out that the conditions (i.e. soils, groundwater, slope) which limit the use of conventional septic systems apply to alternative as well, since all such systems ultimately rely on soil adsorption of all or most of the wastewater generated. More importantly, failures of alternative are likely to be very difficult to correct given that conventional systems would not be suitable as a fallback. Moreover, most alternative systems require a highdegree of design expertise, which increases the danger of faulty design and complicates the review of various proposals. Finally, most alternative designs require a far more intensive and sophisticated operation and maintenance effort by the homeowner, which past experience suggests will not be forthcoming. Recognizing the need for a position on alternative systems, the Regional Board adopted the following statement in its Minimum Guidelines: “The Regional Board Executive Officer may authorize the Health Officer to approve alternative systems when all of the following conditions are met: a.Where the Health Officer has approved the system pursuant to criteria approved by the Regional Board Executive Officer; b.Where the Health Officer has informed the Regional Board Executive Officer of the proposal to use the alternative system and the finding made in (a) above; and c.Where a public entity assumes responsibility of the inspection, monitoring and enforcing the maintenance of the system through: (i)Provision of the commitment and the necessary legal powers to inspect, monitor, and when necessary to abate/repair the system; and (ii)Provision of a program for funding to accomplish (i) above." The fundamental point is that alternative systems will be approved only if adequate design review is provided, and if a county or some other public agency assumes ultimate responsibility for correction of failures. This goes beyond a county's existing regulatory system under which the county can order correction of failed systems, but has no practical means of ensuring this is done. What is contemplated is a system by which the county would, as a last resort, arrange for a correction to be made even over a homeowner's objection. The homeowner could be billed for engineering and construction costs, and ultimate payment assured by a lien on the property. A service district such as this has been used with success in Stinson Beach and would be one means of implementing this regulatory system, but the county could probably acquire the necessary powers directly. Local agencies may approve and permit certain types of alternative on-site systems. The Regional Board will consider the local agency's alternative system program, in accordance with the Regional Board's position on alternative systems discussed above. An acceptable program should include siting and design criteria for the types of alternative systems being approved, procedures for on-going inspection, monitoring, and evaluation of these systems, and appropriate local regulations for implementation and enforcement of the program. Such authorization may be granted through an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Regional Board and the local agency. Typically, that agency will be the county environmental health department. The MOU provides a means for identifying the responsibilities of both the Regional Board and the local agency such as mutually agreed siting, design and construction criteria, and guidelines for the operation, maintenance, and monitoring of alternative systems. Alternative on-site system designs should be substantiated by suitable reference materials including previous field testing and documentation of successful performance under site and soil conditions similar to the local conditions. System designs that have not been fully proven under proposed conditions will be considered experimental and treated with caution. In general, experimental systems will require more careful siting and design review and, if approved, intensive monitoring and inspection to ensure adequate system operation and performance. GRAYWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS On March 8, 1994, the California Building Standards Commission approved new graywater rules developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). These rules became effective on November 8, 1994 and supersede local graywater regulations. Under DWR's rules, a homeowner, builder, developer, or other owner of a single dwelling may plumb such dwellings for, and install now or later, a collection, filtration, and subsurface irrigation system using water from showers, tubs, clothes washers, bathroom and laundry sinks. The treated graywater is to be used for subsurface landscape irrigation. Cities and counties have authority to develop policies and procedures for the implementation of graywater programs. In developing these, consultation with the Regional Board and local water districts can ensure that potential impacts on local water quality are taken into consideration. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Current estimates of annual sediment inflow to San Francisco Bay are 5.9 million cubic yards with 3.9 million cubic yards contributed through the Delta and 2.0 million cubic yards from Bay Area tributary streams. By the year 2000, ABAG has estimated that approximately 322,500 acres of land area will be converted to urban use. This is a 73 percent increase above the 1975 urbanized land area. This increase in urbanized land use can be expected to be the future source of much of the sediment that will reach the rivers, streams and channels and ultimately the Bay system each year. Soil erosion and related water quality impacts may result from a wide variety of causes including construction, hillside cultivation, non-maintained roads, timber harvesting, improper hiking/ biking trail use, and off-road vehicles. Natural erosion processes are accelerated when existing protective cover is removed before, during, and following construction and agricultural activities. Studies relate that erosion on land where construction activities are taking place is about 10 times greater than on land in cultivated row crops, 200 times greater than on pasture land, and 2,000 time greater than on timber land that has not been logged. The exposure of the soil mantle to falling rain, overland and channelized flow, and the impact of equipment moving over the site results in the increased movement and loss of soil. Damage from erosion and sedimentation can be categorized in the following ways: · Damage to construction sites; · Damage to stream channels; · Damage to water quality/beneficial uses; · Damage to public and private property; and · Damage to agricultural lands. In most cases, the adverse results of human activities can be reduced and in some instances eliminated through the use of both structural and non-structural measures of various types that are properly employed at the appropriate time. The high cost of lost resources, resource replenishment and after-the-fact repair and maintenance make both pre-project erosion control planning and preventive maintenance necessary. The goals of and the program for erosion and sediment control are summarized below. GOAL The goal of the Regional Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program is to reduce and prevent accelerated (human-caused) erosion to the level necessary to restore and protect beneficial uses of receiving waters now significantly impaired, or threatened with impairment, by sediment. This goal is to be attained through implementation of proper soil management practices. Voluntary implementation is encouraged, but enforcement authority will be exercised where beneficial uses of water are clearly threatened by poor soil management practices. PROGRAM In May of 1980, the Regional Board adopted two separate items to alert local governments to the Regional Board's concern on erosion control problems related to construction activities. The first item was a statement of intent (Resolution No. 80-5) regarding erosion control which stated that the Regional Board: · Recognizes that water quality problems are associated with construction related activities; · Recognizes ABAG's progress in developing erosion and sediment control regulatory programs and assistance to local governments to implement these programs; · Recognizes local governments power to adopt and implement these programs; · Intends to strengthen its position with regard to regulation of sediment and erosion control problems especially with regard to construction activities; and · Intends to take appropriate enforcement action pursuant to the California Water Code in cases where land development or other construction activity causes or threatens to cause adverse water quality impacts associated with erosion problems and intends to consider, during enforcement actions, whether local government negligently contributed to the problem due to failure to adopt and/or effectively enforce erosion control programs. The second item was a memorandum of understanding negotiated with the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts that is intended to provide the following: · Assessment, control and monitoring of potential and existing soil erosion related water quality problems; · Improvement of coordination between the Resource Conservation Districts and the Regional Board; and · Monitoring of local government progress on the adoption and implementation of erosion and sediment control ordinances. The Regional Board has recognized and encouraged the efforts that ABAG has made since mid-1980 in working with local Bay Area governments to improve their ordinance and regulatory programs on erosion and sediment control. By the end of 1995, ABAG will have updated their 1980 Manual of Standards in Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. During the 1993-94 rainfall season a number of erosion problems associated with construction activities were noted. These problems would probably have been far better controlled if local government erosion ordinances and regulatory programs had been in line with those recommended by ABAG. The Regional Board intends to follow the guidelines listed below in regulating erosion and sedimentation for the protection of beneficial uses of water. 1.Local units of government with land use planning authority should have the lead role in controlling land use activities that cause erosion and may, as necessary, impose further conditions, restrictions, or limitations on waste disposal or other activities that might degrade the quality of waters of the state. 2.Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be implemented to reduce erosion and sedimentation and minimize adverse effects on water quality. A BMP is a practice or combination of practices determined to be the most effective and practicable means to prevent or reduce erosion and sediment related water quality degradation. Examples of control measures are contained in the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Further technical guidance can be obtained from the Resource Conservation Districts. 3.Local governments should develop an effective erosion and sediment control ordinance and regulatory program. An effective ordinance and regulatory program must: · Be at least comparable to the model ordinances in ABAG's Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures; · State that water quality protection is an explicit goal of the ordinance; · Require preparation of erosion and sediment control plans consistent with the Manual of Standards with specific attention to both off-site and on-site impacts; · Provide for installation of approved control measures no later than October 15 of each year; and · Have provisions for site inspections with follow up at appropriate times, posting of financial assurances for implementation of control measures, and an enforcement program to assure compliance with the ordinance. 4.All persons proposing alterations to land (over five acres) are required to file a Report of Waste Discharge and/or and Erosion Control Plan with the Regional Board. A statewide general NPDES permit aimed at minimizing erosion from the proposed activities has been issued. In addition, the Regional Board may find that any water quality problems caused by erosion and sedimentation for such a project were due to the negligent lack of an adequate erosion control ordinance and enforcement program by the local permitting agency. Such a finding of negligence could subject a permitting agency to liability for indemnification to a developer if civil monetary remedies are recovered by the state. 5.The Regional Board may take enforcement action pursuant to the California Water Code to require the responsible persons (including local permitting agencies) to clean up and abate water quality problems caused by erosion and sedimentation in the event that the local permitting agency fails to take the necessary corrective action. DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENT BACKGROUND Dredging and dredged sediment disposal in the San Francisco Bay Area is an ongoing activity because of continual shoaling which impedes navigation and other water dependent activities. Large volumes of sediment are transported in the waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers which drain the Central Valley. The average annual sediment load to the San Francisco Bay system from these two rivers is estimated to be eight million cubic yards. Of this amount, some four million cubic yards is transported out of the Bay through the Golden Gate. The remaining four million cubic yards is circulated and/or deposited in the Bay. In addition, some two and one-half million cubic yards are deposited into the Bay from local watersheds. Annual maintenance dredging of shipping channels, harbors and marinas in the San Francisco Bay results in disposal of between two and eight million cubic yards of dredged material at in-bay disposal sites. There are currently three designated disposal sites for use by the Corps, the Navy and other dredgers. Additionally, the Corps disposes of material from several projects at designated sites in Suisun Bay and on the San Francisco Bar (west of the Golden Gate). All aquatic dredged material disposal sites are operated as "dispersive" sites, that is material disposed at the sites is intended to disperse and be carried by currents out to sea. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The Corps of Engineers issues federal permits for dredging projects pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As a part of this permitting process, the dredging permit applicant must seek water quality certification from the State of California, in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Currently the applicant must contact the Regional Board for 401 certification. The Regional Board may waive certification, or it may recommend to the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board that Certification be granted or denied. Water quality certifications often contain conditions that the permittee must meet during the term of the permit. For example, Certifications often contain conditions requiring periodic testing of the dredged material, or avoidance of sensitive ecological areas and spawning grounds. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) also regulates dredging and disposal under the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGING AND DISPOSAL IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT During the late 1980s and continuing to the present, concern over the potential impacts of dredged sediment disposal in San Francisco Bay has increased substantially, forcing regulatory agencies to reexamine their dredging policies. The Regional Board, during their triennial review of the Basin Plan in 1986, stated their intention to update and revise the Regional Board's dredged sediment disposal policy for San Francisco Bay. During the triennial review, the Regional Board recognized that periodic dredging is necessary to maintain the beneficial use presented by navigation and other water dependent activities. The Regional Board also stated their intention to institute a more rigorous testing program to determine the suitability of dredged sediment for unconfined aquatic disposal in San Francisco Bay. Most dredging and dredge material disposal operations cause localized and ephemeral impacts with related biological consequences (Table 4-12). In August, 1980, the Regional Board adopted a general policy for the regulation of dredge sediment disposal. Many concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the Corps' regional procedures to identify potential pollution conditions. One area of concern is implicit in the guidelines and protocol, for testing of sediment for ocean disposal. The current ocean disposal criteria (pursuant to the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act) are more stringent than the inland criteria (governed under the Clean Water Act). In the 1980s it was determined that the Alcatraz disposal site was accumulating significant amounts of material, with the depth of the site going from the original 110 feet to 30 feet. The mounding at the disposal site ultimately became a threat to navigation. The Corps eventually dredged the Alcatraz site to increase the depth, redistributing the material within the disposal area several times between 1984 and 1986. In September of 1988, Regional Board staff circulated and presented an issue paper entitled "A Review of Issues and Policies Related to Dredge Spoil Disposal in San Francisco Bay." The issue paper discussed the major environmental concerns posed by dredged sediment disposal in San Francisco Bay, namely: (1) mounding at the Alcatraz disposal site which posed a navigational hazard and has the potential to alter circulation patterns in the Bay; (2) the disposal of increasingly large amounts of material has the potential to alter benthic and shoreline habitats and to increase water column turbidity; and (3) the resuspension of dredged sediments may increase contaminant bioavailability. The issue paper presented a range of alternative strategies for the Regional Board to consider. Public and agency testimony was received by the Regional Board during hearings on September 15, 1988 and October 19, 1988. Agencies testifying included the Corps, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In the issue paper, Regional Board staff recommended that the Regional Board consider adopting quantity and quality limits for the disposal of dredged sediment at unconfined aquatic disposal sites within San Francisco Bay. Additionally, the Regional Board and the Corps took steps to prevent further "mounding" at the region's single largest disposal site, the Alcatraz site. In 1989, the Regional Board adopted volume targets which served to prevent over-filling of the region's three aquatic disposal sites. BCDC also revised its policies to restrict in-bay disposal. Land disposal avoids many of the potential adverse impacts in aquatic systems. A different set of potential environmental impacts is associated with land disposal but also the opportunity for creating environmental benefits. DREDGING STUDY PROGRAMS DREDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM In the late 1980s, the Corps of Engineers undertook a series of local dredging studies as a part of the Dredged Management Program (DMP). Additionally, the Corps nationally undertook a Demonstration Program, to examine the environmental impacts from various dredged material disposal practices. The goal of these programs was to examine: 1) factors associated with aquatic disposal practices, 2) the characteristics of dredged material, 3) alternative methods of disposal and 4) dredging technology. However, because the DMP was conducted internally; was not consensus-based; and did not fully involve other state and federal agencies, environmental groups and the dredging community; concern and conflict continued to surround dredging in San Francisco Bay. One particularly notable instance of continued conflict was a 1989 protest and blockade of the aquatic disposal sites by environmental and fishing interests. In the fall of 1989 and early 1990, the Corps undertook a new approach to studying environmental issues surrounding dredging and disposal site management. LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The new approach, called the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredged material, was designed as a cooperative process based on active participation by state and federal permitting agencies. The lead LTMS agencies share four basic goals related to the fact that dredging is important both economically and environmentally (Table 4-13). The LTMS structure is a pyramid form with technical committees at the base, and appointed state and federal agency administrators at the top (Table 4-14). Three staff-level committees, or "workgroups" were charged with addressing technical issues and managing environmental studies. The Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, was charged with general coordination, contracting and administrative functions. Later in the process, a fourth committee was formed to carry out various LTMS implementation tasks. The implementation committee has been primarily concerned with permit coordination and streamlining, but has also attempted to address inequities in upland disposal site financing, upland/non-tidal site acquisition and changes to Federal dredging policy. Above the technical and implementation committees is the Management Committee, represented by management executives from five key LTMS agencies. The Management Committee, in turn, takes direction from the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee consists of the chairpersons of the Regional Board and BCDC, the USEPA Regional Administrator, the State Dredging Coordinator (Governor Appointed), and the commander of the South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers. Broad public input is gained via the Policy Review Committee, which meets quarterly to review the work and progress of LTMS. THE LTMS PROCESS The LTMS process allows participation by resource agencies, environmental groups and the maritime industry. In 1990, the LTMS Study Plan was approved by the participating agencies. The Study Plan outlined in general, the LTMS process and which scientific fields were pertinent and in which areas there existed "gaps" in knowledge. Technical work groups were established order to take responsibility for examining issues in the arenas of: 1) deep ocean disposal, 2) in-bay aquatic disposal, and 3) upland/non-aquatic disposal and re-use. Staff at the Regional Board, BCDC and USEPA were appointed to chair the three work groups (Table 4-14). Each committee was budgeted funds by the Corps in order to carry out approved studies. Throughout the LTMS process, the Corps has retained responsibility for contract management, budgets, and other administrative duties. For the first several years of the program, the In-bay studies work-group also served as a part of the San Francisco Estuary Project, as it was also designated as the subcommittee on "Dredging and Waterway Modification." The LTMS process has resulted in new findings regarding sediment toxicity testing and transport; the development of new testing procedures; and new approaches to disposal of dredged material. Additionally, the LTMS participants continue to work toward better disposal site management, and, perhaps more importantly, an increased level of coordination and cooperation between those involved with dredging. Participating federal and state permitting and resources agencies receive technical and policy input from dredging, environmental and fishing communities through the LTMS structure. OCEAN STUDIES The Ocean Studies Work Group, funded through LTMS, provided input on U.S. EPA' s study and designation of a deep ocean disposal site for dredged material. The group oversaw studies in the areas of sediment transport modeling, benthic ecology and environmental risk. The results of various technical studies were compiled in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in which five disposal sites were considered. U.S. EPA completed an EIS on ocean disposal in August of 1993. Concurrent and following work on the EIS, U.S. EPA, with input from LTMS, moved closer to disposal site use by completing a Site Management and Monitoring Plan. The designated deep ocean disposal site is located about 58 miles offshore, beyond the boundaries of the California National Marine Sanctuaries, in waters which are 6,000 to 9,000 feet deep. The site was formally designated by U.S. EPA on August 11, 1994 (59 Federal Register Section 41243 et seq.) It is expected that the ocean site will be used for disposal of dredged material from large new work and maintenance dredging projects. IN-BAY STUDIES In-bay disposal studies were undertaken to address several key areas of concern. Following the general terms of the LTMS Study Plan, the In-bay work group examined key environmental concerns in the following areas: · Physical effects of disposal, including turbidity; · Physical processes including fate and transport of material from the disposal sites using numerical modeling; · Toxicological issues, including release of contaminants during disposal, and ecological fate of contaminants; · Non-treatment effects in sediment toxicity tests; · Bioaccumulation; · Methods to reduce the need for dredging; and · Sampling and analysis methods for sediment testing. Most of the LTMS in-bay studies were completed by the end of 1994; however, several documents remain in draft form. UPLAND AND NON-TIDAL/REUSE STUDIES The Upland Studies Program focused on the evaluation of the potential for upland disposal and the use of dredged material as a resource. The group conducted planning-level feasibility studies of potential sites in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Studies examined the engineering, biological and hydrological aspects of wetland restoration using dredged material; as well as, various regulatory and planning issues surrounding upland reuse. Other issues studied by the group included: remedial technologies for treating contaminated sediments, an analysis of seasonal and tidal wetlands in the North Bay and a feasibility study of potential sediment rehandling sites. The LTMS technical studies have added to our information base and have filled some of the "data gaps" that were originally identified in the LTMS Study Plan. In many cases, LTMS studies have confirmed our conceptual views and hypotheses about how the Estuary and the ecosystem functions. WETLAND RESTORATION USING DREDGED MATERIAL While the Regional Board remains concerned about the impacts of both polluted and clean sediments on the San Francisco Estuary, much of the sediment disposed of in the Region is not polluted and could be used in beneficial ways (termed "reuse"). One of these uses involves the restoration of tidal marshes in areas which were once part of the Bay. These areas, known as diked historic baylands, were once open to the tides and were thriving salt marsh and mudflat ecosystems (further discussion under "Wetlands Protection and Management" section). Decades of land "reclamation," first initiated in the 1800s resulted in diked agricultural lands, the land surface of which have subsided for a variety of reasons. In order to foster growth of marsh vegetation, and proper slough channel formation, the new marsh must be built near mean high tide. In many cases it will be beneficial to place a layer of sediment across the site so as to raise the elevation of the land surface to a point near the mean tide line. LTMS studies have examined the environmental, engineering and economic considerations that are involved in restoring certain sites. The studies commissioned by LTMS have shown that, given current laws and policies, placement of dredged sediment at wetland restoration projects may cost more than traditional in-Bay disposal, but less than ocean disposal. SONOMA BAYLANDS One such example of this concept is the Sonoma Baylands Wetlands Demonstration Project. The Sonoma Baylands property, which was formerly used for hay production, was acquired by the Sonoma Land Trust for preservation as undeveloped open space. The Sonoma Baylands project was managed by the State Coastal Conservancy which facilitated a partnership between the Corps and the Port of Oakland. Federal legislation was necessary to allow the Corps to direct the construction of the project. The Corps began filling the site with dredged sediment in the fall, 1995, with completion expected in late 1996. The 322-acre Sonoma Baylands site will require some two and a half million cubic yards of sediment prior to contact with tidal waters. The Regional Board has issued a permit for the construction of Sonoma Baylands, regulating the placement of dredged sediment and run-off water from the site. Tidal marsh vegetation is expected to be established within five years of construction. MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT The Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project is planned on an even larger scale. The Montezuma project site is located on northern boundary of Suisun Bay at Collinsville. The site, which is adjacent to the Suisun Marsh reserve, is currently used for sheep ranching and commercial pheasant hunting. The Montezuma project involves the restoration of approximately 1,800 acres of diked historic baylands to tidal action. Like, the Sonoma Baylands site, dredged sediment would be placed at Montezuma in order to account for the heavily subsidence that has occurred at the site. In some areas, up to a seven-foot thick layer of sediment would be necessary to bring the site to a proper elevation for wetland creation. Because the Montezuma site has subsided so much, the quantity of material that potentially will be placed there is in the range of 20 million cubic yards. Montezuma project is currently undergoing CEQA review. REGIONAL BOARD POLICIES ON DREDGING AND DREDGED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL 1. NEED FOR REGIONAL AND LOCAL MONITORING The Regional Board recognizes that the continued disposal of maintenance work will require a demonstration that there are no significant or irreversible impacts occurring from the disposal of maintenance dredged material in San Francisco Bay. The Corps' and other major dredgers' active participation in environmental studies, as well as testing and monitoring programs is absolutely necessary in order to find solutions to the dredging problems in the region. 2. MATERIAL DISPOSAL RESTRICTION Materials disposed of at approved aquatic dredged material disposal sites shall be restricted to dredged sediment. Disposal of rock, timber, general refuse and other materials shall be prohibited. 3. VOLUME TARGETS Volume targets for each disposal site were developed based on understandings of sediment dynamics and historical information regarding disposal volumes (Table 4-16). An examination of disposal patterns at all aquatic disposal sites in San Francisco Bay revealed that the Carquinez Straits area may be influenced by wet weather events. The volume targets for the Carquinez Straits disposal site are 3.0 million cubic yards for wet and above normal years and 2.0 million cubic yards for all other year classification. In addition, the Regional Board establishes a volume target of 0.2 million cubic yards per year for the Suisun Bay Channel disposal site and restricts its use to Corps maintenance dredging. The San Francisco Bar site is used for disposal of material from the bar channel. The use of the San Francisco Bar disposal site is regulated under the Marine Research, Sanctuaries and Protection Act. 4. VOLUME TARGET IMPLEMENTATION The Regional Board will consider denial of water quality certification for any project proposing to place material at a disposal site for which the annual or monthly volume target has been exceeded. Small project proponents may apply for an exemption to monthly or annual volume targets and new work disposal in San Francisco Bay. A small project is defined as a facility or project whose design depth does not exceed 12 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). The project proponent must demonstrate: a.That the additional burden placed upon the applicant would be inordinate relative to the beneficial uses protected; and b.That the proposed discharge is less than 20,000 cubic yards in one year and not to exceed 50,000 cubic yards over five years. 5. USE OF TESTING GUIDELINES The Regional Board's Executive Officer will continue to require technical data according to Public Notice 93-2, "Testing Guidelines for Dredged Material Disposal at San Francisco Bay Sites," or subsequent guidelines. In June of 1994, the Corps of Engineers and USEPA published the draft Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Discharge in Waters of the U.S. (Draft), Inland Testing Manual (ITM). The ITM is intended to provide comprehensive guidance to dredging applicants on sampling and testing of sediment. The ITM outlines a tiered approach to sediment testing, similar to the existing Ocean Disposal Testing Manual, or "Green Book", which was written by the federal government for ocean disposal (pursuant to MPRSA). The Regional Board is working in cooperation with other LTMS agencies to develop a regional implementation manual which will detail how the ITM will be implemented in the San Francisco Bay Area. The ITM was intended to only address testing of material for aquatic disposal and does not provide protocol for upland disposal. Disposal of dredged material in other environments for beneficial re-use, e.g. wetland restoration, landfill daily cover, and levee bolstering will be subject to guidance provided by the Regional Board. The Executive Officer, following consultation with other agencies, will periodically review and update all testing procedures. The Executive Officer may require additional data collection beyond the tiered-testing procedures on a case-by-case basis. 6.APPLICABILITY OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS The Regional Board will consider issuing waste discharge requirements for individual dredging projects unless the Executive Officer has waived such requirements in accordance with Resolution No. 833, which is incorporated by reference into this plan (see Chapter 5). 7.DREDGING WINDOWS The Regional Board will restrict dredging or dredge disposal activities during certain periods ("windows") in order to protect the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay. These beneficial uses include water contact recreation, ocean commercial and sport fishing, marine habitat, fish migration, fish spawning, shellfish harvesting, and estuarine habitat. These restrictions may include but are not limited to: a.Dredging activities from December through February in selected sites along the waterfront where Pacific Herring are known to spawn; and b.Disposal activities at the Carquinez Straits site during spring and fall in order to protect Striped Bass and Salmon migrations. 8.IMPACTS AT DREDGE SITE The Regional Board may require additional documentation and inspections during dredging activities in order to ensure that dredgers minimize impacts at the dredging location. Water Quality Certifications or waste discharge requirements may contain additional conditions to address barge overflow and other impacts at the dredging site. Permit conditions may include: · Special reporting procedures for the hydraulic pumping of dredged material into transport scows prior to disposal (marina slip applications); · Time limit on the overflow from hopper-type hydraulic dredges in order to obtain an economical load; or · Precautions to minimize overflow and spillage from the dredging vessel when in-route to the authorized disposal site. (Appreciable loss during transit shall be considered unauthorized disposal, or "short dumping" and such occurrences are subject to enforcement by the Regional Board or other applicable state or federal agencies.) 9.POLICY ON LAND AND OCEAN DISPOSAL The Regional Board shall continue to encourage land and ocean disposal alternatives whenever practical. Regional Board staff have determined that there should be a high priority placed on disposing of dredged sandy material upland. At a minimum, incentives should be developed to limit disposal of any such material with a market value to upland uses. Staff may condition Certifications so as to encourage upland re-use of high-value sediments. 10.POLICY ON DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL PERMIT COORDINATION The Regional Board will implement these measures through its issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements, Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or other orders. In addition, the Regional Board will may require pre- and post-dredge surveys to determine disposal volumes and compliance with permit conditions. In order to better manage data and reduce paper files, Regional Board staff will be requesting that applicants submit testing and other project data in a specific electronic format. The Regional Board has been an active participant in efforts to improve the overall dredging permit process and the procedures. The goal of this effort is to provide the public with uniform testing and disposal guidelines, joint permit actions, a streamlined permit application process and more uniform permit enforcement. Staff are working with other state and federal agencies to implement a combined state-federal dredging permit process. The process is generally based on the Washington State "Dredged Material Management Office," a part of the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis program (PSDDA) which regulates dredging and disposal in the Seattle and Tacoma regions. CURRENT CORPS OF ENGINEER'S POLICY ON VOLUME OF MATERIAL DISPOSED OF AT THE ALCATRAZ DISPOSAL SITE: On February, 1, 1993, the Corps of Engineers released a proposed policy, as Public Notice 93-3, which further limited allowable monthly disposal volumes at the Alcatraz disposal site (SF-11). The Corps stated that the "existing maximum volume targets have been determined to be inadequate to maintain the site for continued dredged material disposal." The Corps' change in policy in the Public Notice reduces monthly volume limits for the Alcatraz site below what has been adopted by the Board (table). However, the Corps' policy does not address annual limits, it reserves exclusive use of the site for Corps-maintained projects if deemed necessary, and it allows other dredgers to dispose of material at the San Pablo Bay site (SF-10), when and if the Alcatraz site has reached capacity. Of course, the Corps may change their policy independently of the Regional Board and other agencies. MINES AND MINERAL PRODUCERS INACTIVE SITES Over 50 abandoned or inactive mines have been identified within the San Francisco Bay region (Table 4-16 and Figure 4-5). The mineral resources extracted include mercury, magnesite, manganese, coal, copper, silver, and gold. A large percentage of the mining activities took place from 1890-1930, although some areas were mined as recently as 1971. The size of these mines varies from relatively small surface mines of less than half an acre to the world's second largest mercury mine, the New Almaden District, located in southern Santa Clara County. Water quality problems associated with mining activities can be divided into two categories: · Erosion and sediment discharge from surface mines and ore tailings piles; and · Acid or otherwise toxic aqueous discharge from underground mines, ore tailings, or other mining processes. Problems of erosion and sediment discharged from mined areas may be intensified due to the fact that sediment from ore rich areas typically contain high concentrations of metals. Biological processes which take place in lake and stream bottom sediments may allow for these pollutants to be released in a form which more readily bioaccumulates in the food chain. Recent water quality and aquatic toxicity monitoring data suggests that the beneficial uses of a number of water supply reservoirs, creeks, and streams in the region have been impacted as a result of past mining activities. Threatened beneficial uses of lakes, streams, bays and marshes due to mining activities so far identified in the region include: fish migration, fish spawning, shellfish harvesting, wildlife habitat, preservation of rare and endangered species, cold and warm freshwater habitat, and water contact recreation. In response to these findings surveys were conducted by the Regional Board staff in order to locate all abandoned and operating mines in the region. In many cases, the adverse results of previous surface mining activities can be reduced, and in some cases eliminated, through appropriate erosion and sediment control practices. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS, formerly Soil Conservation Service) has developed a Resource Management System for Surface Mined Areas. This management system references practices and treatment alternatives needed in order to address the following: · Erosion control practices which will dispose of surface water run-off at non-erosive velocities and reduce soil movement by wind or water to within acceptable limits; · Maintenance of adequate water quality and quantity for planned uses and to meet federal, state, and local requirements; · Pollution control to meet federal, state, and local regulations; and · A system of planned access and/or conveyance that is within local regulations and meets the needs for the intended use. In 1980, a memorandum of understanding was negotiated with the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts in order to provide for assessment and monitoring of potential and existing soil erosion related water quality problems, and identification of control measures. It was agreed that local units of government should have the lead role in controlling land use activities that cause erosion. Controls measures include the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The Resource Management System for Surface Mined Areas developed by NRCS specifically references BMPs determined to be the most effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing erosion and sediment related water quality degradation resulting from surface mining activities. ACTIVE SITES There are approximately 100 active mines and mineral producers within the San Francisco Bay region. The primary mineral commodities produced include clay, salt, sand and gravel, shale, and crushed stone. Water quality problems associated with mineral production activities generally consist of erosion and sediment discharge into nearby surface water bodies and wildlife habitat destruction. Active mining and mineral production activities are in part regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975. This Act requires all mine operators to submit a reclamation plan to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, and the recognized lead local agency for the area in which the mining is taking place. Recognized lead local agencies for the San Francisco Bay region include County Planning and Public Works Departments. Additionally, some local planning departments regulate mining activities through the issuance of conditional land use permits. The goal of each reclamation plan is to assure that mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition which is readily adaptable for alternate land uses and creates no danger to public health and safety. To date, very little emphasis has been placed on the need to protect beneficial uses of surface and groundwaters in the established permitting process. Under the California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 15, Article 7, the Regional Board has the authority to regulate mining activities that result in a waste discharge to land through the use of waste discharge requirements. Additionally, the federal NPDES stormwater regulations (40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and 124) require active and inactive mining operations to obtain NPDES permit coverage for the discharge of stormwater contaminated by contact with any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products, byproducts, or waste products. GOAL The Regional Board’s goal is to restore and protect beneficial uses of receiving waters now impaired, or threatened with impairment, resulting from past or present mining activities. This goal will be attained by the coordinated effort of the Regional Board, NRCS, the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and lead local government agencies through the implementation of a mineral production and mining management program. PROGRAM 1.The Regional Board intends to continue to work closely with Resource Conservation Districts and NRCS to identify all existing and abandoned mines and mineral production sites in the region. Responsible parties will be identified and if needed, potential funding alternatives for cleanup activities. Sites will be prioritized based on existing and potential impacts to water quality and size. 2.The Regional Board will require an NPDES permit for the discharge of contaminated stormwater from active and inactive mining operations, as defined in the NPDES stormwater regulations. The Regional Board will consider issuing individual permits or a general permit for such discharges, or will otherwise allow coverage under the State Board general permit for stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity as described in the “Urban Runoff Management, Industrial Activity Control Program” Section. Requirements of the notice of intent to be covered under the general permit(s) and the schedule for submittal will be established in the permit(s). 3.The responsible party or operator of each site discharging, or potentially discharging waste to land shall be required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Regional Board. Submittal of a Report of Discharge will be requested by the Regional Board pursuant to the California Water Code Section 13267. Requests will be made on a site-by-site basis and based on priority. A Report of Waste Discharge shall consist of a “Site Closure Plan” and an “Operation and Management Plan” for active sites. · Each plan shall be designed to ensure short- and long-term protection of beneficial uses of receiving waters. · The “Closure Plan” shall address site restoration and long-term maintenance and monitoring. · The “Operation and Management Plan” shall address stormwater runoff and erosion control measures and practices. · Each plan will be evaluated in regard to potential impacts to beneficial uses of receiving waters. Waste Discharge Requirements will be issued or waived at the discretion of the Regional Board based on the threat to water quality and the effectiveness of identified and implemented control measures and the effectiveness of local agency oversight. VESSEL WASTES The discharge of wastes from pleasure, commercial, and military vessels has been a water quality concern of the Regional Board since 1968 when Resolution No. 665 was adopted, which suggested thatthe federal government regulate waste discharges from vessels. In 1970 the Regional Board adopted Resolutions 70-1 and 70-65 on vessel wastes. The first urged BCDC to condition marina permits for new or expanded marinas to include pumpout facilities, dockside sewers, and restroom facilities. Resolution 70-65 recommended that vessel wastes be controlled in such a manner through legislative action. In 1982, the Regional Board conducted a study that found high levels of coliform in the vicinity of several marinas in Marin County’s Richardson Bay. Subsequently, the Regional Board adopted a prohibition against discharge of any kind into Richardson Bay. A regional agency was formed to implement and enforce this prohibition. There is an ongoing effort to construct, renovate, and improve pumpout facilities at marinas and ports around the region. The goal of these efforts is to increase the accessibility of these facilities to boaters and reduce pollution from vessel wastes. WETLANDS PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Wetlands and related habitats comprise some of the San Francisco Bay region's most valuable natural resources. Wetlands provide critical habitats for hundreds of species of fish, birds, and other wildlife; offer open space; and provide many recreational opportunities. Wetlands also serve to enhance water quality, through such natural functions as flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants. The Regional Board will refer to the following for guidance when permitting or otherwise acting on wetlands issues: · Governor’s Executive Order W-59-93 (signed August 23, 1993; also known as the California Wetlands Conservation Policy); · Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28; and · California Water Code Section 13142.5 (applies to coastal marine wetlands). The goals of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy include ensuring "no overall net loss,” achieve a “long-term net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands acreage and values ...", and reducing "procedural complexity in the administration of state and federal wetlands conservation programs." Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28 states, "It is the intent of the legislature to preserve, protect, restore, and enhance California's wetlands and the multiple resources which depend on them for the benefit of the people of the state." California Water Code Section 13142.5 states, "Highest priority shall be given to improving or eliminating discharges that adversely affect ... wetlands, estuaries, and other biologically sensitive sites." The Regional Board may also refer to the San Francisco Estuary Project’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (June, 1994) for recommendations on how to effectively participate in a region-wide, multiple-agency wetlands management program. REGIONAL WETLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN Consistent with the California Wetlands Conservation Policy, the Regional Board is participating in the preparation of a Regional Wetlands Management Plan (RWMP). The RWMP will provide the framework for coordinating and integrating wetlands planning and regulatory activities in the San Francisco Bay region and will therefore include both regulatory and non-regulatory components. The RWMP will identify and specify the beneficial uses and/or functions and values of existing wetlands and establish wetland habitat goals for the region. As beneficial uses are identified for specific wetlands, the Basin Plan will be amended to incorporate the new information into Chapter 2. The RWMP will also seek to streamline the wetlands regulatory process through improved interagency coordination and consolidation of the permitting process. Towards this end, the Regional Board has undertaken the 404/Regulatory Pilot Project, which will be discussed in more detail under "Emerging Program Areas." DETERMINATION OF APPLICABLE BENEFICIAL USES FOR WETLANDS Beneficial uses of water are defined in Chapter 2 and are applicable throughout the region. Chapter 2 also identifies and specifies the beneficial uses of 34 significant marshes within the region. The Regional Wetlands Management Plan will identify and specify the beneficial uses of many additional significant wetlands. However, because of the large number of small and non-contiguous wetlands within the region, it will probably not be practical to specify beneficial uses for every wetland area. Therefore, beneficial uses will frequently be specified as needed for a particular site. This section provides guidance on how beneficial uses will be determined for wetlands within the region. General information contained in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maps regarding the location and areal extent of different wetland types will be used as an initial reference for any necessary delineation and beneficial use designation. The Regional Board will then use the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al. 1979), which is incorporated by reference into this plan, or other appropriate methods to identify specific wetland systems at specific locations. A matrix of the potential beneficial uses that may be supported by each Fish & Wildlife wetland system type is presented in Table 4-17. It should be noted that while the Fish & Wildlife wetlands classification system is a useful tool for helping to establish beneficial uses for a wetland site, it is not suggested that this system be used to identify or delineate wetlands. HYDROLOGY Hydrology is a major factor affecting the beneficial uses of wetlands. To protect the beneficial uses and water quality of wetlands from impacts due to hydrologic modifications, the Regional Board will carefully review proposed water diversions and transfers (including groundwater pumping proposals) and require or recommend control measures and/or mitigation as necessary and applicable. WETLAND FILL The beneficial uses of wetlands are frequently affected by diking and filling. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, discharge of fill material to waters of the United States must be performed in conformance with a permit obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to commencement of the fill activity. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the state must certify that any permit issued by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 will comply with water quality standards established by the state (i.e., Basin Plans), or the state can waive such certification. If the state does not waive certification, the state Board's Executive Director, acting on the recommendation of the Regional Board, can grant or deny state certification. The Regional Board has independent authority under the State Water Code to regulate discharges of waste to wetlands (waters of the state) that would adversely affect the beneficial uses of those wetlands through waste discharge requirements or other orders. In situations where there is a conflict between the state and the Corps, such as over a jurisdictional determination or in rare instances where the Corps may not have jurisdiction, the Regional Board may choose to exercise its independent authority under the State Water Code. In such cases, the dischargers and/or affected parties will be notified within 60 days of the Regional Board's decision and be required to file a report of waste discharge. For proposed fill activities deemed to require mitigation, the Regional Board will require the applicant to locate the mitigation project within the same section of the region, wherever possible. The Regional Board will evaluate both the project and the proposed mitigation together to ensure that there will be no net loss of wetland acreage and no net loss of wetland value. "Out-of-kind" mitigation may be permitted in situations where it is consistent with the goals of the Regional Wetlands Management Plan. The Regional Board will use the U.S. EPA's Section 404(b)(1), "Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material," dated December 24, 1980, which is incorporated by reference into this plan, in determining the circumstances under which wetlands filling may be permitted. In general, it is preferable to avoid wetland disturbance. When this is not possible, disturbance should be minimized. Mitigation for lost wetland acreage and values through restoration or creation should only be considered after disturbance has been minimized. OIL SPILLS Oil spills can cause severe and extensive damage to the environment. Fortunately, the petroleum industry has been improving its safety record in oil transfer operations - the step in petroleum handling where spills are most likely to occur. The volume of oil spilled during transfer operations has decreased since 1975. This improvement is due to: · U.S. Coast Guard regulations for oil transfer operations; · State Lands Commission guidelines for petroleum facility operations manuals; · High clean-up costs and public concern associated with oil spills; and · Regional Board, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Coast Guard enforcement actions against parties responsible for spills. The Regional Board considered adopting a policy requiring specific improvements in oil transfer operations, but due to the industry's improved performance, the Regional Board is holding the adoption of such a policy in abeyance while continuing to monitor the industry's performance. The Regional Board recognizes that additional regulation is unnecessary if the petroleum industry maintains its improved record. |
| <<< Previous - Ch.5: Plans and Policies |
- Home
- Share:
Search
