CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (continued)SURFACE WATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT -- NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL MEASURESDuring 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 MANAGEMENTDuring 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:
MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTANT DISCHARGE FROM STORM DRAINSThe 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 PROGRAMAll 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:
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 PROGRAMThe 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:
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 PROGRAMAn 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 PROGRAMIndustrial 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 PERMITTINGThe 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 PERMITTINGIn 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 PERMITTINGSpecific 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 PERMITTINGA 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 PROGRAMThe 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 MANAGEMENTAgricultural 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 OPERATIONSAnimal 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:
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 MANAGEMENTMuch 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 REGULATIONBoth 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:
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 PROGRAMPERMITTING/WAIVER OF PERMITSGenerally, 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 PLANNINGIn 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:
IRRIGATION OPERATIONSAn 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. RECLAMATIONPOLICY STATEMENTTo 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 REQUIREMENTSIf 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 CONTROLThe 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 COORDINATIONImplementation 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 MANAGEMENTOne 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 SYSTEMSAs 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 FACILITIESThe policy enumerates the following principles, which apply to all wastewater discharges:
The policy also makes the following requests of city and county governments:
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 GUIDELINESSince 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 SYSTEMSAlthough 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 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 SYSTEMSOn 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 CONTROLCurrent 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:
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. GOALThe 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. PROGRAMIn 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:
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:
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. ABAG's 1995 Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, which provides specific guidance to local governments, is an important tool for improving erosion and sediment control. The Regional Board intends to follow the guidelines listed below in regulating erosion and sedimentation for the protection of beneficial uses of water.
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTBACKGROUNDDredging 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 FRAMEWORKThe 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 ENVIRONMENTDuring 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 PROGRAMSDREDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMIn 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 STRATEGYThe 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 PROCESSThe 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 STUDIESThe 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 STUDIESIn-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:
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 STUDIESThe 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 MATERIALWhile 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 BAYLANDSOne 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 PROJECTThe 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
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 PRODUCERSINACTIVE SITESOver 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:
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:
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 SITESThere 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. GOALThe 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. PROGRAM1. 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.
VESSEL WASTESThe 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 that the 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 MANAGEMENTWetlands 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:
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 PLANConsistent 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 WETLANDSBeneficial 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. HYDROLOGYHydrology 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 FILLThe 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 SPILLSOil 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:
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.4: Point Source Controls | Next - Ch.4: Groundwater Protection >>> |
- Home
- Share:
Search
