Water Quality Control Plan 

for the

Central Coastal Basin

June 2011

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region

State Water Resources Control Board

California Environmental Protection Agency
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

Matt Rodriquez, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency

State Water Resources Control Board

Charles R. Hoppin, Chair

Frances Spivey-Webber, Vice Chair

Tam M. Doduc, Member

Thomas Howard, Executive Director

1001 I St., Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone – (916) 341-5254

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Central Coast Region

Jeffrey S. Young, Chair Water Supply Member

Russell M. Jeffries, Vice Chair Water Quality Member

John H. Hayashi Irrigated Agriculture Member

David T, Hodgin Water Quality Member

Dr. Monica S. Hunter Public Member

Dr. Jean-Pierre Wolff Recreation, Fish, or Wildlife Member

vacant County Government Member

vacant Industrial Water Use Member

vacant Municipal Government Member

Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer

Michael J. Thomas, Assistant Executive Officer

895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401-7906

Phone – (805) 549-3147 

Fax – (805) 543-0397

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast
Water Quality Control Plan

for the

Central Coastal Basin

June 2011

(Including Amendments Effective Through June 8, 2011)

This report was prepared under the direction of:

Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer

Michael J. Thomas, Assistant Executive Officer

Lisa H. McCann, Environmental Program Manager

by

Steven G. Saiz, Environmental Scientist

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region

State Water Resources Control Board

California Environmental Protection Agency

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. I-1

I. FUNCTION OF THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (BASIN PLAN) ..............................................I-1

II. LEGAL BASIS AND ATHORITY................................................................................................................I-1

III. THE CENTRAL COASTAL REGION........................................................................................................I-2

IV. THE REGIONAL BOARD.........................................................................................................................I-5

V. HISTORY OF BASIN PLANNING AND THE BASIN PLAN......................................................................I-5

VI. TRIENNIAL REVIEW AND BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE................................................I-6

VI.A. CONTINUING PLANNING....................................................................................................................I-6

CHAPTER 2. PRESENT AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES ...................................................................... II-1

I. PRESENT AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES...................................................................................II-1

II. BENEFICIAL USE DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................II-1

CHAPTER 3. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ III-1

I. CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES................................................ III-1

II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................... III-2

II.A. ANTI-DEGRADATION POLICY .......................................................................................................... III-2

CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN........................................................................................................... IV-1

I. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD GOALS ................................................................. IV-2

II. GENERAL CONTROL ACTIONS AND RELATED ISSUES .................................................................. IV-2

III. CONTROL ACTIONS UNDER STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 

AUTHORITY................................................................................................................................ IV-2

IV. CONTROL ACTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY OTHER AGENCIES WITH WATER 

QUALITY OR RELATED AUTHORITY....................................................................................... IV-3

V. CONTROL ACTIONS UNDER REGIONAL BOARD AUTHORITY ....................................................... IV-3

V.A. WASTE DISCHARGE RESTRICTIONS............................................................................................. IV-3

V.B. NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM..................................................................................................... IV-7

VI. WASTE DISCHARGE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... IV-8

VI.A. EFFLUENT LIMITS............................................................................................................................ IV-8

VI.A.1. STREAM DISPOSAL...................................................................................................................... IV-8

VI.A.2. ESTUARINE DISPOSAL ................................................................................................................ IV-9

VI.A.3. OCEAN DISPOSAL ........................................................................................................................ IV-9

VI.B. MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... IV-13

VI.C. INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ............................................................................. IV-24

VI.D. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... IV-25

VI.E. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT................................................................................................... IV-26

VI.F. BAY PROTECTION AND TOXIC CLEANUP PROGRAM............................................................... IV-27

VI.G. MILITARY INSTALLATIONS........................................................................................................... IV-28

VI.H. SPILLS, LEAKS, INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEANUP PROGRAM ................................................ IV-32

VI.I. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM ............................................................................ IV-34

VI.J. ABOVEGROUND PETROLEUM STORAGE TANKS...................................................................... IV-35

VI.K. CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 23, CHAPTER 15.............................................. IV-36

VI.L. RESOURCE CONSERVATION RECOVERY ACT (SUBTITLE D)................................................. IV-41

VI.M. SOLID WASTE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT TEST ............................................................. IV-42

VII. HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE ISSUES................................................................................ IV-43

VII.A. REPORTABLE QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND SEWAGE DISCHARGES........... IV-43

VII.B. PROPOSITION 65.......................................................................................................................... IV-43

VIII. NONPOINT SOURCE MEASURES.................................................................................................. IV-44

VIII.A. COASTAL ZONE ACT REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS .................................................... IV-45

VIII.B. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... IV-46

VIII.C. AGRICULTURAL WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT .............................................. IV-48

VIII.D. INDIVIDUAL, ALTERNATIVE, AND COMMUNITY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ................................. IV-57

VIII.E. LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES.............................................................................................. IV-68
ii

IX. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS....................................................................................................... IV-76

IX. A. MORRO BAY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT (INCLUDING CHORRO 

CREEK, LOS OSOS CREEK AND THE MORRO BAY ESTUARY)......................................... IV-76

IX. B. SAN LORENZO RIVER TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT (INCLUDING 

CARBONERA CREEK, LOMPICO CREEK, AND SHINGLE MILL CREEK)............................ IV-82

IX. E. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS FOR MORRO BAY AND CHORRO 

AND LOS OSOS CREEKS ....................................................................................................... IV-90

IX. G. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR PATHOGENS FOR SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK ............ IV-96

IX. G. SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD AND IMPLEMENTATION 

PLAN FOR NITRATE-NITROGEN.......................................................................................... IV-101

IX. H. PAJARO RIVER TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR SEDIMENT INCLUDING LLAGAS 

CREEK, RIDER CREEK, AND SAN BENITO RIVER............................................................. IV-104

IX. I. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS FOR WATSONVILLE SLOUGH ............ IV-110

IX. J. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN SAN LORENZO ESTUARY, SAN 

LORENZO RIVER, BRANCIFORTE CREEK, CAMP EVERS CREEK, CARBONERA 

CREEK, AND LOMPICO CREEK ........................................................................................... IV-115

IX. K. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN SOQUEL LAGOON, SOQUEL 

CREEK, AND NOBLE GULCH................................................................................................ IV-123

IX. L. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN APTOS CREEK, VALENCIA 

CREEK, AND TROUT GULCH ............................................................................................... IV-129

IX. M. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR FECAL COLIFORM IN PAJARO RIVER

WATERSHED WATERS (INCLUDING PAJARO RIVER, SAN BENITO RIVER, LLAGAS 

CREEK, TEQUISQUITA SLOUGH, SAN JUAN CREEK, CARNADERO/UVAS CREEK, 

BIRD CREEK, PESCADERO CREEK, TRES PINOS CREEK, FURLONG (JONES) 

CREEK, SANTA ANA CREEK, AND PACHECO CREEK)..................................................... IV-134

CHAPTER 5. PLANS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................................V-1

I. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD PLANS AND POLICIES ........................................V-1

I.A. STATE POLICY FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL...........................................................................V-1

I.B. ANTI-DEGRADATION POLICY ............................................................................................................V-2

I.C. THERMAL PLAN...................................................................................................................................V-2

I.D. BAYS AND ESTUARIES POLICY ........................................................................................................V-2

I.E. POWER PLANT COOLING POLICY ....................................................................................................V-3

I.F. RECLAMATION POLICY ......................................................................................................................V-3

I.G. SHREDDER WASTE DISPOSAL POLICY ..........................................................................................V-3

I.H. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PILOT POLICY ..........................................................................V-3

I.I. SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER POLICY.........................................................................................V-3

I.J. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................................V-3

I.K. OCEAN PLAN .......................................................................................................................................V-4

I.L. DISCHARGES OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE POLICY ....................................................................V-4

II. RECOMMENDED STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTROL ACTIONS.............V-4

III. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES ............................V-5

III.A. GENERAL ...........................................................................................................................................V-5

III.B. WASTEWATER RECLAMATION .......................................................................................................V-5

III.C. DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS..............................................................................................V-5

III.D. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWERING ENTITIES ...................................................................V-6

III.E. GROUND WATER ..............................................................................................................................V-6

III.F. INDIVIDUAL, ALTERNATIVE, AND COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ..........................................................V-7

III.G. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL .................................................................................V-7

IV. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS...............................................................................................................V-8

IV.A. ALL WATERS .....................................................................................................................................V-8

IV.B. INLAND WATERS ..............................................................................................................................V-8

IV.C. WATERS SUBJECT TO TIDAL ACTION...........................................................................................V-9

IV.D. GROUND WATERS .........................................................................................................................V-10

IV.E. OTHER SPECIFIC PROHIBITION SUBJECTS ...............................................................................V-11

IV.F. EXCEPTIONS TO BASIN PLAN REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................V-11

V. CONTROL ACTIONS............................................................................................................................V-11

V.A. WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................V-11
iii

V.B. STATE CLEAN WATER GRANTS OR LOANS ................................................................................V-12

V.C. SALT DISCHARGE ...........................................................................................................................V-12

V.D. INDIVIDUAL, ALTERNATIVE, AND COMMUNITY SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ....................V-12

V.E. AGENCY COORDINATION...............................................................................................................V-12

V.F. ANIMAL CONFINEMENT OPERATIONS .........................................................................................V-13

V.G. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION...................................................................................................V-13

V.H. ACTIONS BY OTHER AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................V-14

VI. REGIONAL BOARD POLICIES ...........................................................................................................V-16

VI.A. SEWERAGE FACILITIES AND SEPTIC TANKS IN URBANIZING AREAS IN THE 

CENTRAL COAST REGION......................................................................................................V-17

VI.B. SEPTIC TANKS................................................................................................................................V-17

VI.D. AREA OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS)...........................................................V-17

VI.E. LEGISLATIVE MATTERS.................................................................................................................V-17

VI.F. PROHIBITION ZONES .....................................................................................................................V-17

VI.G. SAN LORENZO VALLEY.................................................................................................................V-18

VI.H. HIGHWAY GROOVING RESIDUES ................................................................................................V-18

VI.I. WAIVER OF WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS.....................................................................V-18

VI.J. INTERPRETATION OF MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON-SITE 

SEWAGE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................V-18

VI.K. APPRECIATION FOR DISCHARGER COMPLIANCE ....................................................................V-18

CHAPTER 6. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT............................................................................................VI-1

I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................VI-1

II. OBJECTIVES .........................................................................................................................................VI-1

III. QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................................................................VI-2

IV. REGULATORY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT...........................................................................VI-2

IV.A. COMPLIANCE MONITORING............................................................................................................VI-2

IV.B. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION..........................................................................................................VI-3

IV.C. AERIAL SURVEILLANCE .................................................................................................................VI-3

V. AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................VI-3

V.A. STATE MONITORING PROGRAMS..................................................................................................VI-3

V.B. REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS...........................................................................................VI-7

V.C. ASSESSMENTS.................................................................................................................................VI-8

V.D. OTHER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES .............................................................VI-10
iv

APPENDIX

Number Title

A-1 State Policy for Water Quality Control (1972)

A-2 Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California (Antidegradation Policy), State Board Resolution No. 68-16

A-3 Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in Coastal and Interstate Waters and 

Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (Thermal Plan)

A-4 Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (Bays and Estuaries 

Policy)

A-5 Power Plant Cooling Policy 

A-6 Reclamation Policy, State Board Resolution No. 77-1 

A-7 Shredder Waste Disposal Policy, State Board Resolution No. 87-22 

A-8 Underground Storage Tank Pilot Program, State Board Resolution No. 88-23 

A-9 Sources of Drinking Water Policy, State Board Resolution No. 88-63 

A-10 Nonpoint Source Management Plan

A-11 Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (1990) (Ocean Plan)

A-12 Discharges of Municipal Solid Waste Policy, State Board Resolution No. 93-62

A-13 Sewerage Facilities and Septic Tanks in Urbanizing Areas in the Central Coast Region, Resolution 

No. 69-1 

A-14 Acceptance of Monterey County Board of Supervisor's Ordinance Applying Development 

Restrictions to the Bays Hills (Bay Farms/Hillcrest), Resolution No. 86-2

A-15 Acceptance of Monterey County Board of Supervisors' Ordinance Applying Development 

Restrictions to the Area within the San Lucas County Water District, Resolution No. 87-5

A-16 Deleted

A-17 Adopting Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan And Requesting Approval from the State 

Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 89-04 amended by Resolution No. 2005-0013

A-18 Recommendation to the State Water Resources Control Board Concerning the Designation of 

Terrace Point in Santa Cruz County as an Area of Special Biological Significance, Resolution No. 

76-10 

A-19 Supporting Approval of the Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978, Resolution No. 

78-04 

A-20 Regarding Marina County Water District's Petition to Delete the Southern Monterey Bay Discharge 

Prohibition Zones from the Basin Plan, Resolution No. 79-06 

A-21 Certification of Santa Cruz County's Wastewater Management Program for the San Lorenzo River 

Watershed, Resolution No. 87-04 

A-22 Policy Regarding Disposal of Highway Grooving Residues
v

APPENDIX (continued)

Number Title

A-23 Waiver of Regulations of Specific Types of Waste Dischargers

A-24 Interpretation of Minimum Parcel Size Requirements for On-Site Sewage Systems, Resolution No. 

91-04 

A-25 Appreciation for Discharger Compliance, Resolution No. 93-04 

A-26 Support Material for Calculating Adjusted Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) Area

A-27 Nipomo Individual Sewage Disposal System Prohibition Area Description 

A-28 Deleted

A-29 Deleted

A-30 Los Osos Baywood Park Individual and Community Sewage Disposal System Prohibition Area, 

Resolution No. 83-13 

A-31 Preliminary List of Potential Toxic Hot Spots 

A-32 Salinas Ground Water Basin and Sub-Areas

A-33 Paso Robles Ground Water Basin and Sub-Areas

A-34 Santa Maria Ground Water Basin and Sub-Areas

A-35 Lompoc Ground Water Basin and Sub-Areas

Steve is cool
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

Table 1-1. 1988 Triennial Review Priority List........................................................................................................ I-7

Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters............................................................................................. II-2

Table 2-2. Existing and Anticipated Uses of Coastal Waters.............................................................................. II-16

Table 2-3. Central Coastal Ground Water Basins ............................................................................................... II-17

Table 3-1. Organic Concentrations Not to be Exceeded in Domestic or Municipal Supply ................................. III-6

Table 3-2. Inorganic and Fluoride Concentrations Not to be Exceeded in Domestic or Municipal Supply.......... III-7

Table 3-3. Guidelines for Interpretation of Quality of Water for Irrigation............................................................. III-8

Table 3-4. Water Quality Objectives for Agricultural Water Use ......................................................................... III-9

Table 3-5. Toxic Metal Concentrations not to be Exceeded in Aquatic Life Habitats ........................................ III-11

Table 3-6. Toxic Metal Concentrations Not to be Exceeded in Marine Habitats................................................ III-12

Table 3-7. Surface Water Quality Objectives ..................................................................................................... III-13

Table 3-8. Median Ground Water Objectives ..................................................................................................... III-16

Table 4-1. Big Basin Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers........................................................ IV-13

Table 4-2. Pajaro River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers ................................................... IV-15

Table 4-3. Carmel River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers .................................................. IV-17

Table 4-4. Salinas River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers.................................................. IV-17

Table 4-5. Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit Summarized Dischargers...................................................................... IV-19

Table 4-6. Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers ........................................... IV-22

Table 6-1. Synthetic Organic Compounds Analysed in the Toxic Substances Monitoring and State 

Mussel Watch Programs.................................................................................................................VI-4
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Title Page

Figure 1-1. Central Coast Region 3.............................................................................................................I-3

Figure 2-1. Central Coast Hydrologic Planning Area ...............................................................................II-15

Figure 2-2. Central Coast Groundwater Basins .......................................................................................II-18

Figure 4-1. Active Miltary Installations in the Central Coast Region ...................................................... IV-33
June 8, 2011 I-1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

I. FUNCTION OF THE 

WATER QUALITY 

CONTROL PLAN (BASIN 

PLAN)

The objective of this Water Quality Control Plan for 

the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, is to show 

how the quality of the surface and ground waters in 

the Central Coast Region should be managed to 

provide the highest water quality reasonably possible. 

Water uses and water benefits vary. Water quality is 

an important factor in determining use and benefit. 

For example, drinking water has to be of higher 

quality than the water used to irrigate pastures. Both 

are legitimate uses, but the quality requirements for 

irrigation are different from those for domestic use. 

The plan recognizes such variations.

This Basin Plan lists the various water uses 

(Beneficial Uses, Chapter Two). Second, it describes 

the water quality which must be maintained to allow 

those uses (Water Quality Objectives, Chapter 

Three). Federal terminology is somewhat different, in 

that beneficial uses and water quality objectives are 

combined and the combination is called Water 

Quality Standards. Chapter Four, the Implementation 

Plan, then describes the programs, projects, and 

other actions which are necessary to achieve the 

standards established in this plan. Chapter Five, 

Plans and Policies, summarizes State Water 

Resources Control Board (State Board) and Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) plans 

and policies to protect water quality. Chapter Six

describes statewide surveillance and monitoring 

programs as well as regional surveillance and 

monitoring programs.

The Regional Board implements the Basin Plan by 

issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements 

to individuals, communities, or businesses whose 

waste discharges can affect water quality. These 

requirements can be either State Waste Discharge 

Requirements for discharges to land, or federally 

delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface

water. Methods of treatment are not specified. When 

such discharges are managed so that: 1) they meet 

these requirements; 2) water quality objectives are 

met; and, 3) beneficial uses are protected, water 

quality is controlled.

The Basin Plan is also implemented by encouraging 

water users to improve the quality of their water 

supplies, particularly where the wastewater they 

discharge is likely to be reused. Public works or 

other projects which can affect water quality are 

reviewed and their impacts identified. Proposals 

which implement or help achieve the goals of the 

Basin Plan are supported; the Regional Board makes 

water quality control recommendations for other 

projects.

II. LEGAL BASIS AND

AUTHORITY

California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

(1969), which became Division Seven ("Water 

Quality") of the State Water Code, establishes the 

responsibilities and authorities of the nine Regional 

Water Quality Control Boards (previously called 

Water Pollution Control Boards) and the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The PorterCologne Act names these Boards "... the principal 

State agencies with primary responsibility for the 

coordination and control of water quality" (Section 

13001). Each Regional Board is directed to 

"...formulate and adopt water quality control plans for 

all areas within the region." A water quality control 

plan for the waters of an area is defined as having 

three components: beneficial uses which are to be 

protected, water quality objectives which protect 

those uses, and an implementation plan which 

accomplishes those objectives (Section 13050). 

Further, "such plans shall be periodically reviewed 

and may be revised" (13240). The federal Clean 

Water Act (Public Law 92-500, as amended) provides 

for the delegation of certain responsibilities in water 

quality control and water quality planning to 
June 8, 2011 I-2

the states. Where the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and the SWRCB have agreed to such 

delegation, the Regional Boards implement portions 

of the Clean Water Act, such as the NPDES program 

and toxic substance control programs.

The Porter-Cologne and Clean Water Acts also 

describe how enforcement of waste discharge 

regulations is to be carried out. Enforcement tools 

available to the Regional Board range from simple 

letters to the discharger, through formal Regional 

Board order, and direct penalty assessments, to 

judicial abatement for civil and/or criminal penalties. 

Legally noticed public hearings are required for most 

actions, but some enforcement actions (e.g., Cleanup 

or Abatement Orders) have been delegated to staff to 

allow for a quicker response than regularly scheduled 

Regional Board meetings can provide.

III. THE CENTRAL 

COASTAL REGION

One of nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards in 

California, the Central Coast Regional Board has 

jurisdiction over a 300-mile long by 40-mile wide 

section of the State's central coast. Its geographic 

area encompasses all of Santa Cruz, San Benito, 

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara 

Counties as well as the southern one-third of Santa 

Clara County, and small portions of San Mateo, Kern, 

and Ventura Counties. Included in the region are 

urban areas such as the Monterey Peninsula and the 

Santa Barbara coastal plain; prime agricultural lands 

as the Salinas, Santa Maria, and Lompoc Valleys; 

National Forest lands, extremely wet areas like the 

Santa Cruz mountains; and arid areas like the Carrizo 

Plain. Figure 1-1 shows the Central Coast Regional 

boundary. Some physical characteristics of the 

Region are listed below:

CENTRAL COAST REGION1

CHARACTERISTICS NUMBER MEASURE

Area of Region -- 11,274 square miles

Streams Unknown 2,360 miles

Lakes 99 25,040 acres

Ground Water Basins 53 3,559 square miles

Mainland Coast -- 378 miles

Wetlands and Estuaries 59 8,387 acres

Areas of Special Biological

 Significance

9 235,825 acres

1 Water Quality Assessment for Water Years 1986 and 1987, 

Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 88-1 Water Quality, 

Division of Water Quality, State Water Resources Control 

Board, July, 1988.

Topographic features are dominated by a rugged 

seacoast and three parallel ranges of the Southern 

Coast Mountains. Ridges and peaks of these 

mountains, the Diablo, Gabilan, and Santa Lucia 

Ranges, reach to 5,800 feet. Between these ranges 

are the broad valleys of the San Benito and Salinas 

Rivers. These Southern Coast Ranges abut the west 

to east trending Santa Ynez Mountains of the 

Transverse Ranges that parallel the southern 

exposed terraces of the Santa Barbara Coast.

This coastal area includes urbanized and agricultural 

areas along Monterey Bay, the rugged Big Sur Coast, 

Morro Bay with its famous rock, the sandy clam beds 

of Pismo Beach, and a varied coastline south to Point 

Conception and eastward along the terraces and 

recreational beaches which line the Santa Barbara 

Channel. The inland valleys and cities reflect an 

agricultural, oil, and tourism economy, as well as the 

early history of California expressed in the 

architectural styles of the famous Spanish missions 

which are found throughout this region.

The trend of the mountain ranges, relative to onshore 

air mass movement, imparts a marked climatic 

contrast between seacoast, exposed summits, and 

interior basins. Variations in terrain, climate, and 

vegetation account for a multitude of different 

landscapes. Seacliffs, sea stacks, white beaches, 

cypress groves, and redwood forests along the 

coastal strand contrast with the dry interior landscape 

of small sagebrush, short grass, and low chaparral. 

In times past, the beaches and ocean waters offshore 

have been prolific producers of clams, crustaceans, 

and important sport and commercial
June 8, 2011 I-3

Figure 1-1. Central Coast Region 3
June 8, 2011 I-4

fish. Past fishing practices and disruption of habitat 

have reduced fishery resources; protective controls 

are now in effect. Terrestrial wildlife includes a wide 

range of valley and upland species including the more 

common raccoon, quail, bear, and deer. Rare, 

endangered, or unique species include various shore 

birds, the Morro Bay Kangaroo rat, the European 

boar, and the California condor. The Sespe Condor 

Range serves as a sanctuary for this impressive bird. 

Historically, the economic and cultural activities in the 

basin have been agrarian. Livestock grazing persists, 

but it has been combined with hay cultivation in the 

valleys. Irrigation, with pumped local ground water, is 

very significant in intermountain valleys throughout 

the basin. Mild winters result in long growing 

seasons and continuous cultivation of many 

vegetable crops in parts of this basin.

While agriculture and related food processing 

activities are major industries in the region, oil 

production, tourism, and manufacturing contribute 

heavily to its economy. The northern part of the 

region has experienced a significant influx of 

electronic manufacturing industry, and the southern 

part is being heavily influenced by expanded offshore 

oil exploration and production.

The Central Coast Region has three times the volume 

of average annual precipitation (12,090,000 acre-feet) 

as the Los Angeles Region, but one-seventh the 

population (1.2 million versus 8 million). The North 

Coast Region receives 52 million acre-feet of 

precipitation on the average with a population of 

460,000. These three regions demonstrate the range 

of California's water and population distribution 

imbalance:

Annual Average 

Region Precipitation (Ac. Ft.) per Person

North Coast 113.0

Central Coast 9.9

Los Angeles 0.56

Although this table shows the Central Coast is 

somewhat in the middle of the State's water-versuspopulation distribution, the region is considered arid 

for the most part. An exception is the Santa Cruz 

mountain area with its relatively high average 

precipitation.

Total population of the region is estimated to be 1.22 

million people. San Luis Obispo County continues to 

grow more rapidly than other large counties in the 

region. The population of San Luis Obispo County 

has doubled since 1970:

CENTRAL COAST REGION POPULATION

County 1970 1988

Santa Cruz 124,000 225,400

Santa Clara 29,000 65,800

(South)

San Benito 18,000 34,100

Monterey 249,000 346,100

San Luis Obispo 107,000 204,300

Santa Barbara 265,000 345,000

Total1792,000 1,220,700

1 Table does not include relatively small populations of portions 

of Ventura, Kern, and San Mateo Counties that are within the 

Central Coast Region. 

Adequate quality water for many beneficial uses in 

the Central Coastal Basin is in short supply. Water 

rationing for domestic purposes is seriously 

considered and sometimes implemented during water 

shortages. The use of water by the human population 

and its activities is increasing in the basin. Water 

mining and seawater intrusion have resulted in some 

locations. Consequently, the competition for waters of 

adequate quality will become more intense in the 

future.

Water quality problems most frequently encountered 

in the Central Coastal Basin pertain to excessive 

salinity or hardness of local ground waters. Ground 

water basins containing 1000 mg/l Total Dissolved 

Solids (TDS) or higher are found near Hollister, the 

Lower Forebay of the Salinas Sub-basin, the Carrizo 

Plain, the Santa Maria and Cuyama Valleys, San 

Antonio Creek Valley, Lompoc and Santa Rita Basins 

of the Santa Ynez River Valley, and Goleta and 

Santa Barbara. The Carrizo Plain ground waters are 

most highly mineralized -- averaging over 5,000 mg/l 

TDS. Increasing nitrate concentrations is a growing 

problem in the Salinas River Basin, Los Osos Creek 

Basin, the Santa Maria Valley, and near Arroyo 

Grande. Surface water problems are less frequently 

evident, although bacteriological contamination of 

coastal waters has been a problem in Morro Bay and 

South Santa Barbara County. Eutrophication occurs 

in Pajaro River and Llagas Creek, Salinas River 
June 8, 2011 I-5

below Spreckels, and in the lower reaches of San 

Luis Obispo Creek. Some streams in the basin are 

naturally highly mineralized and contribute to the 

excessive salinity of local ground waters; examples 

include Pancho Rico Creek in the Salinas River Subbasin, and the Cuyama River in the Santa Maria Subbasin. Both surface waters contain in excess of 1000 

mg/l TDS.

IV. THE REGIONAL BOARD

The Regional Board consists of nine members 

appointed by the Governor to serve staggered fouryear terms. Members must reside or maintain a place 

of business within the Region and must be associated 

with or have special knowledge of specific activities 

related to the control of water quality. Members of the 

Regional Board conduct their business at regular 

meetings and public hearings at which public 

participation is encouraged.

All duties and responsibilities of the Regional Board 

are directed at providing reasonable protection and 

enhancement of the quality of all waters in the 

Region, both surface and underground. The 

programs by which these duties and responsibilities 

are carried out include:

Preparing new or revised policies addressing 

region-wide water quality concerns;

Adopting, monitoring compliance with, and 

enforcing waste discharge requirements and 

NPDES permits;

Providing recommendations to the State Board on 

financial assistance programs, proposals for 

water diversion, budget development, and other 

statewide programs and policies;

Coordinating with other public agencies which are 

concerned with water quality control; and

Informing and involving the public on water quality 

issues.

V. HISTORY OF BASIN 

PLANNING AND THE 

BASIN PLAN

Prior to 1970, the Regional Board did not have an 

active water quality planning function. Water quality 

problems in surface streams and ground water were 

responded to by setting controls on discharges. 

Those discharge controls generally consisted of 

limiting the allowable increases in TDS concentrations 

and certain other parameters. Normally, the only 

additional requirement specified by the Regional 

Board was that the discharge could not create a 

nuisance or pollution. 

At the request of the federal Water Quality 

Administration, predecessor to the EPA (and 

successor to the federal Water Pollution Control 

Administration), the so-called 1967 Standards were 

developed and published. These standards applied 

to coastal and estuarine waters .

By 1970, the Regional Board was actively involved in 

the formulation of plans to meet established water 

quality objectives. The federal Clean Water Act and 

the Porter-Cologne Act, requiring basinwide planning 

in order to qualify for state and federal funding, plus 

the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES), which empowers the states to set 

discharge standards, placed new tools in the hands of 

the Regional Boards and encouraged the 

development of new approaches to water quality 

management.

The first single plan for this Region was the 1971 

Interim Water Quality Control Plan. It represented 

significant progress in that the 1967 Standards were 

incorporated and standards were designated for fresh 

water streams as well.

Following adoption of the 1971 Interim Plan, the State 

Board developed and adopted the Ocean Plan and 

the Thermal Plan. The Regional Board expanded 

objectives for municipal and domestic water supplies. 

Chemical objectives for the San Lorenzo River Subbasin were made more stringent. Incorporation of 

these State Board plans and Regional Board 

revisions produced the Revised Interim Water Quality 

Control Plan of 1973.
June 8, 2011 I-6

Work then began in earnest on a complete Water 

Quality Control Plan, the 1975 Basin Plan, which has 

been the foundation of the Regional Board's planning 

operations since its adoption in 1975. Basin Plans 

were being developed statewide at that time under 

the direction of the State Water Resources Control 

Board (SWRCB). In this region, the prime contractors 

for basin planning were Brown and Caldwell 

Consulting Engineers; Water Resources Engineers, 

Inc.; and Yoder, Trottner, Orlob and Associates. 

Water quality objectives were based largely on 

existing water quality.

After adoption of the 1975 Basin Plan, some thirtyeight amendments were made to the Basin Plan. 

Management of those amendments became 

cumbersome and led to the need for a Basin Plan 

reprint which included all current amendments. This 

document is intended to fulfill that need.

VI. TRIENNIAL REVIEW 

AND BASIN PLAN 

AMENDMENT PROCEDURE

The federal Clean Water Act (Section 303(c)) requires 

states to hold public hearings for review of water 

quality standards at least once every three years. 

Water quality standards consist of beneficial use 

designations and water quality criteria (objectives) 

necessary to protect those uses. The Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act requires the entire Basin 

Plan to be reviewed periodically. While a major part of 

the review process consists of identifying potential 

problems, an important part of the review is the 

reaffirmation of those portions of the plan where no 

potential problems are identified.

At the conclusion of the triennial review public 

hearing, Regional Board staff prepares a priority list of 

potential problems to the Basin Plan that may result in 

amendments. Placing a potential problem on the 

priority list will only require the Regional Board staff to 

investigate the need for an amendment. It does not 

necessarily mean a revision of the water quality 

control plan will be made.

Other items completed after the public hearing 

include:

Detailed workplans of each issue;

Regional Board identification of issues that can be 

completed within existing resource allocations 

over a three-year period; and

List of issues requiring additional resources to 

complete.

Once the triennial review process is complete, 

Regional Board staff begin investigating the issues in 

order of rank. After each investigation, staff 

determines the need for a Basin Plan amendment.

Basin Plan amendments can also occur for issues not 

identified during the triennial review. Amendments 

can occur for urgent issues to reflect new legislation.

Basin Plan amendment hearings are advertised in the 

public notice section of a newspaper circulated in 

areas affected by the amendment. Persons 

interested in a particular issue can also notify the 

Regional Board staff of their interest in being notified 

of hearings on that topic.

Basin Plan amendments do not become effective until 

approved by the State Board. Surface water 

standards also require the approval of the 

Environmental Protection Agency to become 

effective.

VI.A. CONTINUING 

PLANNING

The Basin Plan is a flexible tool which must be 

reviewed and revised regularly for it to adapt to 

changing conditions. "Continuing planning" allows 

this to occur. The following section prioritizes 

Regional Board tasks and resources. This ranked list 

is referred to as the "Triennial Review List" and is 

shown in Table 1-1.

Items listed were ranked in order of priority by the 

Regional Board on May 6, 1988 and July 8, 1988. 

Each item is followed by an estimate of staff time 

needed to complete the item (actual time and 

duration). For those items requiring contract funding, 

estimated contract needs are identified following the 

description of each item. Resolution of these items 

may result in future Basin Plan amendments.
June 8, 2011 I-7

Table 1-1. 1988 Triennial Review Priority List

Estimated Time Estimated Time

Staff Resources Staff Resources

(Staff Years (Staff Years 

Task and Duration) Task and Duration) 

1. Adopt water quality limited segments*

2. Reprint Basin Plan* 

3. Incorporate Proposition 65 criteria as developed 

by State Board

4. Determine water quality monitoring needs* 

5. Establish nutrient objectives for Pajaro River and 

Llagas Creek

Contract $ = 40,000

6. Establish nutrient objectives for San Luis Obispo 

Creek 

Contract $ = 10,000

7. Establish additional toxic pollutant objectives as 

developed by the State Water Resources 

Control Board

8. Reevaluate Santa Maria Basin ground water 

quality objectives (including Nipomo Mesa and 

Valley)

Contract $ = 20,000

9. Reevaluate discharge prohibition to Santa Maria 

River below Highway One Bridge

Contract $ = 20,000

10. Revaluate Lompoc Plain Boron objective*

11. Incorporate State Board Ground Water Strategy 

and Develop Regional Ground Water Strategy

12. Reevaluate San Lorenzo River nitrate objective 

Contract $ = $30,000

13. Review on-site sewage disposal prohibition in 

San Lorenzo Valley Class I & II areas

14. Review beneficial uses for: Santa Barbara 

Harbor (shellfish), Goleta Slough (migration and 

spawning), San Luis Obispo Creek (municipal 

water supply), Lower Salinas River (all)

15. Develop Upper Salinas Valley ground water salt 

management plan

Contract $ = 30,000

16. Adopt amendments for water bodies affected by 

toxics as required by Clean Water Act

17. Develop toxic control strategy

18. 

 a. Develop beneficial uses for additional needed 

water bodies

 b. Add "Preservation of Areas of Special Biological 

Significant" (BIOL) beneficial use to needed 

water bodies

0.02 SY

0.2 SY

1 year

0.2 SY

6 months

0.4 SY

0.3 SY

20 months

0.3 SY

20 months

0.1 SY

5 years

0.3 SY

2 years

0.2 SY

2 years

0.03 SY

0.3 SY

3 years

0.4 SY

2 years

0.2 SY

0.7 SY

0.4 SY

1 year

0.2 SY

0.3 SY

0.2 SY

0.05 SY

19. Determine need for septic tank prohibition in 

Prunedale, San Lucas, Los Olivos, Ballard and other 

needed areas

20. Establish septic tank sludge policy

21. Establish residual repositories policy

22. Establish Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San Martin ground 

water management plan

23. Establish nonpoint source runoff policy for sensitive 

watersheds (i.e. Elkhorn Slough)

24. Establish agriculture/ pesticide runoff policy

25. Establish greenhouse operations policy

26. Evaluate erosion/sedimentation problems in Santa 

Cruz County

27. Reevaluate vessel discharge policy

28. Reevaluate Santa Ynez ground water basin objective

29. Provide guidance for effluent limits in areas with high 

background concentrations (e.g. ground water nitrate 

exceeds objectives)

30. Establish suitable criteria for Waste Discharge 

Requirements (e.g. standardize rainfall event used to 

evaluate capacity)

31. Provide guidance for regulation of point source 

discharges in the vicinity of significant nonpoint 

source discharges

32. Review unionized ammonia objective for receiving 

waters

33. Reevaluate nonpoint source controls for urban and 

rural runoff

34. Establish storm water discharge policy

35. Review cumulative impact of Monterey Bay 

discharges. Determine need for policy

36. Establish policy for discharge of high temperature 

waters to ground water 

37. Incorporate revised ground water basin boundary 

maps*

38. Review cumulative impact of future on-site disposal 

on Nipomo Mesa/Valley. Reevaluation of the 

Nipomo prohibition boundaries

39. Establish oil drilling mud policy

40. Establish Morro Basin ground water objectives

41. Establish ground water objectives for San Benito 

Basin

Contract $ = 40,000

1.0 SY

0.2 SY

0.3 SY

0.4 SY

8 months

0.5 SY

1 year

0.2 SY

0.1 SY

0.4 SY

0.2 SY

0.3 SY

6 months

0.2 SY

0.2 SY

0.2 SY

0.4 SY

0.3 SY

0.5 SY

0.4 SY

0.2 SY

0.2 SY

0.4 SY

0.2 SY

0.5 SY

0.5 SY

2 years
June 8, 2011 I-8

Table 1-1. 1988 Triennial Review Priority List

Estimated Time

Staff Resources

(Staff Years

Task and Duration)

42. Establish ground water objectives for Price 

Canyon-Edna Valley Watershed

Contract $ = $20,000

43. Establish offshore oil policy

44. Establish reclamation/conservation policy

45. Evaluate need for sewering Hidden Glen 

area of Scotts Valley

46. Review water contact recreation for San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Island

47. Update landfill policy to incorporate new 

State standards* 

48. Update dairy waste policy to incorporate 

new State standards* 

49. Delete Mission Canyon and Los Alamos 

prohibition areas*

____________

* These tasks accomplished by

 adoption of this Basin Plan

0.3 SY

18 months

0.1 SY

0.05 SY

0.2 SY

0.05 SY

0.05 SY

0.05 SY

0.05 SY
June 8, 2011 II-1

CHAPTER 2. PRESENT AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL 

USES

State policy for water quality control in California is 

directed toward achieving the highest water quality 

consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the 

State. Therefore, all water resources must be 

protected from pollution and nuisance that may occur 

as a result of waste discharges.

Establishing the beneficial uses to be protected in the 

Central Coastal Basin is a cornerstone of this 

comprehensive plan. Once uses are recognized, 

compatible water quality standards can be established 

as well as the level of treatment necessary to maintain 

the standards and ensure the continuance of the 

beneficial uses. This chapter will examine and identify 

historical, present, and potential beneficial uses in the 

Basin.

The remainder of this chapter summarizes current 

beneficial uses, describes anticipated future water 

demands characterizing future or potential water users, 

and lists the present and potential beneficial uses in 

tabular form.

I. PRESENT AND 

POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL 

USES

Beneficial uses are presented for inland surface waters 

by 13 sub-basins in Table 2-1. Beneficial uses for 

inland surface waters are arranged by hydrologic unit 

on pages II-2 through II-15. A map of the hydrologic 

units is shown in Figure 2-1 on page II-16. Beneficial 

uses are regarded as existing whether the water body 

is perennial or ephemeral, or the flow is intermittent or 

continuous. Beneficial uses of coastal waters are 

shown in Table 2-2 on page II-17. 

Surface water bodies within the Region that do not 

have beneficial uses designated for them in Table 2-1 

are assigned the following designations:

Municipal and Domestic Water Supply

Protection of both recreation and aquatic life.

Municipal and Domestic Water Supply is designated in 

accordance with the provisions of State Water 

Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 is by 

reference, a part of this Plan. (A copy of this resolution 

is located in the appendix). These MUN designations 

in no way affect the presence or absence of other 

beneficial use designations in these water bodies.

Ground water throughout the Central Coastal Basin, 

except for that found in the Soda Lake Sub-basin, is 

suitable for agricultural water supply, municipal and 

domestic water supply, and industrial use. Ground 

water basins are listed in Table 2-3. A map showing 

these ground water basins is displayed in Figure 2-2 

on page II-19.

II. BENEFICIAL USE 

DEFINITIONS

Beneficial uses for surface and ground waters are 

divided into the twenty standard categories listed 

below. One of the principal purposes of this 

standardization is to facilitate establishment of both 

qualitative and numerical water quality objectives that 

will be compatible on a statewide basis.

Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) - Uses of water 

for community, military, or individual water supply 

systems including, but not limited to, drinking water 

supply. According to State Board Resolution No. 88-

63, "Sources of Drinking Water Policy" all surface 

waters are considered suitable, or potentially suitable, 

for municipal or domestic water supply except where: 

a. TDS exceeds 3000 mg/l (5000 uS/cm electrical 

conductivity);

b. Contamination exists, that cannot reasonably be 

treated for domestic use; 

c. The source is not sufficient to supply an average 

sustained yield of 200 gallons per day; 
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-2

Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 BIG BASIN HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Lucerne Lake Estuary X X X X X X X X X X

Lucerne Lake X X X X X X X X

 Arroyo de los Frejoles Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Arroyo de los Frejoles Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X

Gazos Creek Lagoon/Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Gazos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Old Womans Creek X X X X X X X X X

Whitehouse Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Cascade Creek Lagoon/Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Cascade Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Green Oaks Creek Lagoon/Estuary X X X X X X X X X

Green Oaks Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Ano Nuevo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Finney Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Elliot Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Waddell Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Waddell Creek (Main Stem) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Waddell Creek, east branch X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Last Chance Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Blooms Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Sempervirens Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Union Creek X X X X X X X

 Sempervirens Res. X X X X X X X X X

 Opal Creek X X X X X X X X

 Rogers Creek X X X X X X X

 Maddocks Creek X X X X X X X

 Waddell Creek, west branch X X X X X X X X X X X

 Kelley Creek X X X X X X X

 Berry Creek X X X X X X X

 Henry Creek X X X X X X X X

Scott Creek Lagoon X X X X X X X X X X

Scott Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Little Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Big Creek (Ano Nuevo) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Berry Creek X X X X X X X X

 Deadman Gulch Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Boyer Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Mill Creek (Scott Creek) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Mill Creek Res. X X X X X X X X X X X

Molino Creek X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-3

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

San Vicente Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Mill Creek (Bonnie Doon) X X X X X X X X X

Liddell Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Liddell Creek, east branch X X X X X X X X X X X

 Liddell Creek, w est branch X X X X X X X X X

Laguna Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Laguna Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Reggiardo Creek X X X X X X X X

Majors Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Baldw in Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Baldw in Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Wilder Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Wilder Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Cave Gulch X X X X X X X X

Younger' s Lagoon X X X X X X X X X X

Antonellis Pond X X X X X X X X X

Moore Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Neary' s Lagoon X X X X X X X X

San Lorenzo River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X

San Lorenzo River X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Branciforte Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Blackburn Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Tie Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Granite Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Carbonera Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Zayante Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bean Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Mackenzie Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Ruins Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Lockhart Gulch Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Mountain Charlie Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Lompico Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Mill Creek (SLR) X X X X X X X

 New ell Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Loch Lomond Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Love Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Fritch Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Smith Creek X X X X X X X

 Spring Creek Gulch X X X X X X X

 Bear Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Connelly Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Shear Creek X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-4

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 Deer Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Hopkins Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Tw o Bar Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Kings Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Logan Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Sleeper Gulch X X X X X X X X

 McDonald Gulch X X X X X X X X X X

 Spring Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Boulder Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Bracken Brae Creek X X X X X X X X

 Hare Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Jamison Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Peavine Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Silver Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Foreman Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Malosky Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Clear Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Alba Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Marshall Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Manson Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Fall Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 South Fall Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bennett Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bull Creek X X X X X X X X

 Shingle Mill Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Gold Gulch Creek X X X X X X X X X

Woods Lagoon X X X X X X X X

Arana Gulch X X X X X X X X X X X

Schw an Lake X X X X X X X X X

Corcoran Lagoon X X X X X X X X X X

Rodeo Creek Gulch (Doyle Gulch) X X X X X X X X X X X

Moran Lake X X X X X X X

Soquel Lagoon X X X X X X X X X

Soquel Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bates Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Grover Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Soquel Creek, east branch X X X X X X X X X X

 Hinckley Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Amaya Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Soquel Creek, w est branch X X X X X X X X X

 Hester Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Laural Creek X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-5

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 Burns Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Moores Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Miners Creek X X X X X X X X X

Aptos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Valencia Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Trout Gulch X X X X X X X

 Bridge Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Valencia Lagoon X X X X X X X

 PAJARO RIVER HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Corralitos Lagoon X X X X X

Palm Beach Pond X X X X X X X

Pinto Lake X X X X X X X X X

Kelley Lake X X X X X X X X X

Drew Lake X X X X X X X X X

Tynan Lake X X X X X X X X X

Warner Lake X X X X X X

Pajaro River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pajaro River X X X X X X X X X X X X X

San Benito River X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bird Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Pescadero Creek (S. Benito) X X X X X X X X X X X

 Tres Pinos Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Hernandez Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X

Tequisquita Slough X X X X X X X

San Felipe Lake X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pacheco Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Pacheco Lake X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Llagas Creek (above Chesbro Res.) X X X X X X X X X X X

 Chesbro Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Llagas Creek (below Chesbro Res.) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Alamias Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Live Oak Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Little Llagas Creek X X X X X X X X

Carnadero Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Uvas Creek, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Uvas Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Little Arthur Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Bodfish Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Black Haw k Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Uvas Creek, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-6

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 Little Uvas Creek X X X X X X X X

 Sw anson Canyon Creek X X X X X X

 Alec Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Croy Creek X X X X X X X X

 Eastman Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

 Pescadero Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Soda Lake X X X X X

 Salsipuedes Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Corralitos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Brow ns Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Gamecock Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Ramsey Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Redw ood Creek X X X X X X X X

 Mormon Gulch X X X X X X X

 Clipper Gulch X X X X X X X

 Cookhouse Gulch X X X X X X X

 Shingle Mill Gulch X X X X X X X X X

 Rattlesnake Gulch X X X X X X X

 Diablo Gulch Creek X X X X X X X

 Eureka Gulch X X X X X X X

 Rider Gulch Creek X X X X X X X X X

Watsonville Slough X X X X X X X X X

 Struve Slough X X X X X X X X X

 Hanson Slough X X X X X X X X X

 Harkins Slough X X X X X X X X X

 Gallighan Slough X X X X X X X X

 BOLSA NEUVA HYDROLOGIC UNIT

McClusky Slough X X X X X X X X X

Elkhorn Slough X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Los Carneros Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Bennett Slough/Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

 Parsons Slough X X X X X X X X X X

 CARMEL RIVER HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Carmel River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Carmel River X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Clemente Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Clemente Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Pine Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Los Padres Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-7

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 Cachagua Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Finch Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Tularcitos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Rana Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Chupines Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Black Rock Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 White Rock Lake X X X X X X X X X X

 SANTA LUCIA HYDROLOGIC UNIT

San Jose Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

San Jose Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Garrapata Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Palo Colorado Canyon X X X X X X X X X X X X

Rocky Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Bixby Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Mill Creek X X X X X X X X

Little Sur River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Little Sur River X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Big Sur River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Big Sur River X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Big Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Devils Canyon Creek, south fork X X X X X X X X X

 Devils Canyon Creek, middle fork X X X X X X X X X

 Devils Canyon Creek, north fork X X X X X X X X X

 Big Creek, north fork X X X X X X X

Limekiln Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Mill Creek (Cape San Martin) X X X X X X X X X X X

Willow Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Salmon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 SALINAS HYDROLOGIC UNIT 

Moro Cojo Slough X X X X X X X X X X X X

Old Salinas River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Tembldero Slough X X X X X X X X X

Espinosa Lake X X X X X

Espinosa Slough X X X X X

Salinas Reclamation Canal X X X X X

Gabilan Creek X X X X X X X X X

Alisal Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Blanco Drain X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-8

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

Salinas River Refuge Lagoon (South) X X X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #1 X X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #2 X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #3 X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #4/5 X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #6 X X X X X X X X

Marina Pond #7 X X X X X X X X X

Laguna Grande/Roberts Lake X X X X X X X

Del Monte Lake X X X X X X

El Estero Lake X X X X X X X X X

Salinas River Lagoon (North) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Salinas River, dnstr of Spreckels Gage X X X X X X X X X

Salinas River, Spreckels Gage-Chualar X X X X X X X X X X X X

Salinas Riv, Chualar-Nacimiento Riv X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Arroyo Seco River X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Abbott Lakes (The Lakes) X X X X X X X X X X

 Piney Creek X X X X X X X X

 Paloma Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Tassajara Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Lucia Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Vaqueros Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Reliz Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Hames Creek X X X X X X X X

 San Antonio Riv., dw nstr frm Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Antonio Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Antonio Riv, upstm Frm Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Pancho Rico Creek X X X X X X X X X

 San Lorenzo Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Chalone Creek X X X X X X X X X

Salinas R.,Nacimiento R.-S. Margarita Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Nacimiento River, upstream of Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Salmon Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Nacimiento Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Nacimiento River, dw nstr Res. X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Las Tablas Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Las Tablas Creek, north fork X X X X X X X X X X

 Las Tablas Creek, south fork X X X X X X X X X X

 Franklin Creek X X X X X X X

 San Marcos Creek X X X X X X X X

 Paso Robles Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Jack Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Rita Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-9

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 Atascadero Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Margarita Reservoir (Lake) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Salinas R., Reservoir-Headw aters X X X X X X X X X X X

 Huerhuero Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Vineyard Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

 Big Sandy Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Atascadero Lake X X X X X X X X X X

 ESTERO BAY HYDROLOGIC UNIT

San Carpoforo Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

San Carpoforo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Estrada Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Chris Flood Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Wagner Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Dutra Creek X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo de los Chinos X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo de la Cruz Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo de la Cruz Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Burnett Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo del Oso X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo del Corral X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Oak Knoll Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Arroyo Laguna X X X X X X X X X

Little Pico Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Little Pico Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pico Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pico Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Pico Creek, south fork X X X X X X X X X X X

 Pico Creek, north fork X X X X X X X X X X X

San Simeon Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

San Simeon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Steiner Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Rosa Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Rosa Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Perry Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Green Valley Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Villa Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cayucos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Old Creek, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X X X

 Whale Rock Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Old Creek, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-10

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

Toro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Morro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Little Morro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Morro Bay Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Chorro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Dairy Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Luisito Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Bernardo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Los Osos Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Warden Lake Wetland X X X X X X X X X

Islay Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Coon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Diablo Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

San Luis Obispo Creek Estuary (a) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

S.L.O.Crk. above W. Marsh St. X X X X X X X X X X X X

S.L.O.Crk. below W. Marsh St. X X X X X X X X X X X X

Froom Creek X X X X X X

 Davenport Creek X X X X X X X X X

 San Luis Obispo Creek, east fork X X X X X X X X X X X

 Stenner Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Brizziolari Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Prefumo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Laguna Lake X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pismo Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Pismo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Grande Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Grande Creek, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Oceano Lagoon X X X X X X X X

 Meadow Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Pismo Marsh (Lake) X X X X X X X X

 Los Berros Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Lopez Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Grande Creek, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Big Pocket Lake (Dunes Lakes) X X X X X

Willow Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Pipeline Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Celery Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Hospital Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Big Tw in Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Small Tw in Lake " " X X X X X X X

Bolsa Chico Lake " " X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-11

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

White Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Mud Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Black Lake " " X X X X X X X X

Dune Lakes Marsh Area " " X X X X X X X X

 CARRIZO PLAIN HYDROLOGIC UNIT

San Diego Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Soda Lake X X X X X X X

 SANTA MARIA HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Oso Flaco Lake X X X X X X X X X X

 Oso Flaco Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Maria River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Maria River X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Corralitos Canyon Creek X X X X X X

 Sisquoc River, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Sisquoc River, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X

 Cuyama River, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X

 Tw itchell Reservoir X X X X X X X X X

 Cuyama River, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Alamo Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Huasna River X X X X X X X X X

Orcutt Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 SAN ANTONIO HYDROLOGIC UNIT 

Shuman Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Casmalia Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

San Antonio Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X X

San Antonio Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Barka Slough X X X X X X X X X X

 SANTA YNEZ HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Santa Ynez River Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Santa Ynez River, dow nstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Graves Wetland X X X X X X

 Lompoc Canyon X X X X X X X X X

 La Salle Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

 Sloans Canyon Creek X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-12

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

 San Miguelito Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Salsipuedes Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 El Jaro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 El Callejon Creek X X X X X X X

 Llanito Creek X X X X X X X

 Yridisis Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Canada de la Vina X X X X X X X X

 Nojoqui Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Alamo Pintado Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Zaca Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Zaca Lake X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Rosa Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Rita Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Davis Creek X X X X X X X

 Santa Lucia Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

 Oak Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Hilton Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Cachuma Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Ynez River, upstream X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Gibralter Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Jameson Reservoir X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Agua Caliente Canyon X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Mono Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Indian Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Cruz Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Cachuma Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 SOUTH COAST HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Canada Honda Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada Honda Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada Agua Viva X X X X X X X X X

Water Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Jolloru X X X X X X X X

Jalama Creek Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

Jalama Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Escondido Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

 Gasper Creek X X X X X X X

 Espada Creek X X X X X X X

Wood Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Cojo X X X X X X X X X

Barranca Honda X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-13

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

Arroyo Bulito X X X X X X X X X X

Canada de Santa Anita X X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Sacate X X X X X X X X X X

Canada Alegria X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Agua Caliente X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada de la Gaviota X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada San Onofre X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Molino X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Hondo X X X X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Quenado X X X X X X X X X X X X

Tajigas Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Refugio X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Canada del Capitan X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Dos Pueblos Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Tecolote Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Devereaux Ranch Lagoon X X X X X X X X X X X

Devereaux Creek X X X X X X X X

Goleta Point Marsh X X X X X X X X

Goleta Slough/Estuary X X X X X X X X X X X

 Carneros Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Tecolotito Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 Glen Anne Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Los Caneros Wetland X X X X X X X X

Los Caneros X X X X X X X X X X X

Atascadero Creek (SB) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Maria Ygnacio Creek X X X X X X X X X X

 San Antonio Creek (S Barbara County) X X X X X X X X X X X X

 San Jose Creek (S Barbara County) X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Las Vegas Creek X X X X X X X X

 San Pedro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Las Palmas Creek X X X X X X X

Arroyo Burro Estuary X X X X X X X

Arroyo Burro Creek X X X X X X X X X X X

Mission Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Rattlesnake Canyon X X X X X X X X X X

Waste Slough X X X X X X X

Sycamore Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Andree Clark Bird Refuge X X X X X X X X

San Ysidro Creek X X X X X X X X X

Romero Creek X X X X X X X X X

Toro Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

Arroyo Paredon X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Table 2-1. Identified Uses of Inland Surface Waters

June 8, 2011 II-14

Waterbody Names MUN AGR PRO IND GWR REC1 REC2 WILD COLD WARM MIGR SPWN BIOL RARE EST FRESH NAV POW COMM AQUA SAL SHELL

Carpinteria Marsh (El Estero Marsh) X X X X X X X X X X

 Santa Monica Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Franklin Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Carpinteria Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 Gobernador Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Steer Creek X X X X X X X X X

Rincon Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

 SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL HYDROLOGIC UNIT

SANTA ROSA ISLAND

Canada Lobos Creek X X X X X X X X X

Old Ranch Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Arlington Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

Water Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

Cow Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

Clapp Springs X X X X X X X X X

Old Ranch Canyon Creek Estuaries X X X X X X X X X

Old Ranch House Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X X

Cherry Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X X

SANTA CRUZ ISLAND

Willow Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

Coches Prieto Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

Almos Anchorage Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

Canada del Puerta (Prisoner Harbor) X X X X X X X X

Canada Larga Creek X X X X X X X X

Upper Pozo Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

Sauces Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

Tw in Harbors Canyon Ck, (E. Fork) X X X X X X X X

Lady' s Harbor Canyon Creek X X X X X X X X

 ESTRELLA RIVER HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Estrella River X X X X X X X X X

 San Juan Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Chalome Creek X X X X X X X X X

 Little Chalome Creek X X X X X X X X X
June 8, 2011 II-15

Figure 2-1. Central Coast Hydrologic Planning Area
June 8, 2011 II-16

Table 2-2. Existing and Anticipated Uses of Coastal Watersa

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Coastal Water REC-1 REC-2 IND NAV MAR SHELL COMM RARE ASBS WILD

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pescadero Pt. to Pt. Ano Nuevo E E E E E E E E E

Pt. Ano Nuevo to Soquel Pt. E E E E E E E E

 Pt. Ano Nuevo and Island E E E E E E

 Santa Cruz Harbor E E E E E E

 San Lorenzo Esturary E E E E E E E

Soquel Pt. to Salinas River E E E E E E E E E

 Elkhorn Sloughb E E E E E E E

 Moss Landing Harbor E E E E E E

c E E E

Salinas River to Pt. Pinos E E E E E E E E

 Monterey Harbor A E E E E E A E

 Pacific Grove Marine Gardens E E E E E E E

 Hopkins Marine Life Refuge E E E E E E E

Pt. Pinos to Pt. Piedras Blancas E E E E E E E

 Carmel Bay E E E E E E E

 Pt. Lobos State Reserve E E E E E E

 Pt. Sur E E E E E E

 Pfeiffer-Burns State Park E E E E E E

 Ocean Area Surrounding

 Salmon Creek E E E E E

Pt. Piedras Blancas to Pt. Estero E E E E E E E E

Estero Bay E E E E E E E E E

 Morro Bay E E E E E E E E E

Pt. Buchon to Pt. San Luis E E E E E E E E

Pt. San Luis to Pt. Sal E E E E E E E E E

Pt. Sal to Pt. Arguello E E E E E E E

Pt. Arguello to Coal Oil Pt. E E E E E E E

Coal Oil Pt. to Rincon Pt. E E E E E E E E E

 Goleta Slough E E E E E E

 Santa Barbara Harbor E E E E E E

 Beach Parks E E E E

 San Miguel Island E E E E E E E E E

 Santa Rosa Island E E E E E E E E

 Santa Cruz Island E E E E E E E E E

 El Estero E E E E E E

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a This table lists selected coastal segments. It is not a complete inventory for the Central Coast Region. Unlisted w ater bodies have 

implied beneficial use designations for protection of both recreation and aquatic life.

b Elkhorn Slough has been designated an ecological reserve by the California Department of Fish and Game, and recognized as a National 

Estuary Sanctuary by the Federal Government.

c Clamming is an existing beneficial use in the North Harbor and on the south side of the entrance channel to Elkhorn Slough (north of 

the Pacific Gas and Electric Cooling Water Intake). Presently, no shellfishing use occurs south of the Pacific Gas and Electric Intake.

NOTES: E = Existing beneficial w ater use

A = Anticipated beneficial w ater use
June 8, 2011 II-17

Table 2-3. Central Coastal Ground Water Basinsa

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Name County

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ano Nuevo Area (3-20) San Mateo

Arroyo de la Cruz Valley (3-34) San Luis Obispo

Arroyo Grande Valley-Nipoma Mesa Area (3-11) San Luis Obispo

Big Spring Area (3-47) San Luis Obispo

Bitter Water Valley (3-30) San Benito

Careaga Sand Highlands (3-48) Santa Barbara

Carmel Valley (3-7) Monterey

Carpinteria Basin (3-18) Santa Barbara

Carrizo Plain (3-19) San Luis Obispo

Cayucos Valley (3-38) San Luis Obispo

Cholame Valley (3-5) Monterey, San Luis Obispo

Chorro Valley (3-42) San Luis Obispo

Corral de Tierra Area (3-4.10) Monterey

Cuyama Valley (3-13) Kern, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura

Dry Lake Valley (3-29) Benito

Gilroy-Hollister Valley (3-3) Benito, Santa Clara

Goleta Basin (3-16) Santa Barbara

Hernandez Valley (3-31) Benito

Huasna Valley (3-45) San Luis Obispo

Langley Area (3-4.09) Monterey

Lockw ood Valley (3-6) Monterey

Los Osos Valley (3-8) San Luis Obispo

Montecito Area (3-49) Santa Barbara

Morro Valley (3-41) San Luis Obispo

Old Valley (3-39) San Luis Obispo

Pajaro Valley (3-2) Monterey, Santa Cruz

Paso Robles Basin (3-4.06) Monterey, San Luis Obispo

Peach Tree Valley (3-32) San Benito

Pismo Creek Valley (3-10) San Luis Obispo

Pozo Valley (3-44) San Luis Obispo

Quien Sabe Valley (3-24) San Benito

Rafael Valley (3-46) San Luis Obispo

Rinconada Valley (3-43) San Luis Obispo

Salinas Valley (3-4) Monterey

San Antonio Creek Valley (3-14) Santa Barbara

San Benito River Valley (3-28) San Benito

San Carpoforo Valley (3-33) San Luis Obispo

San Luis Obispo Valley (3-9) San Luis Obispo

San Simeon Valley (3-35) San Luis Obispo

Santa Ana Valley (3-22) San Benito

Santa Barbara Basin (3-17) Santa Barbara

Santa Cruz Purisima Formation Highlands (3-21) Santa Cruz

Santa Maria River Valley (3-12) San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara

Santa Rosa Valley (3-36) San Luis Obispo

Santa Ynez River Valley (3-15) Santa Barbara

Scotts Valley (3-27) Santa Cruz

Seaside Area (3-4.08) Monterey

Soquel Valley (3-1) Santa Cruz

Toro Valley (3-40) San Luis Obispo

Tres Pinos Creek Valley (3-25) San Benito

Upper Santa Ana Valley (3-23) San Benito

Villa Valley (3-37) San Luis Obispo

West Santa Cruz Terrace (3-26) Santa Cruz

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a Basin number locations identified on Figure 2-2.
June 8, 2011 II-18

Figure 2-2. Central Coast Groundwater Basins
June 8, 2011 II-19

d. The water is in collection or treatment systems of 

municipal or industrial wastewaters, process 

waters, mining wastewaters, or storm water 

runoff; and

e. The water is in systems for conveying or holding 

agricultural drainage waters.

Agricultural Supply (AGR) - Uses of water for farming, 

horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to, 

irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for 

range grazing.

Industrial Process Supply (PROC) - Uses of water for 

industrial activities that depend primarily on water 

quality (i.e., waters used for manufacturing, food 

processing, etc.).

Industrial Service Supply (IND) - Uses of water for 

industrial activities that do not depend primarily on 

water quality including, but not limited to, mining, 

cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel 

washing, fire protection, or oil well repressurization.

Ground Water Recharge (GWR) - Uses of water for 

natural or artificial recharge of ground water for 

purposes of future extraction, maintenance of water 

quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater 

aquifers. Ground water recharge includes recharge of 

surface water underflow.

Freshwater Replenishment (FRSH) - Uses of water for 

natural or artificial maintenance of surface water 

quantity or quality (e.g., salinity) which includes a 

water body that supplies water to a different type of 

water body, such as, streams that supply reservoirs 

and lakes, or estuaries; or reservoirs and lakes that 

supply streams. This includes only immediate 

upstream water bodies and not their tributaries.

Navigation (NAV) - Uses of water for shipping, travel, 

or other transportation by private, military, or 

commercial vessels. This Board interprets NAV as, 

"Any stream, lake, arm of the sea, or other natural 

body of water that is actually navigable and that, by 

itself, or by its connections with other waters, for a 

period long enough to be of commercial value, is of 

sufficient capacity to float watercraft for the purposes 

of commerce, trade, transportation, and including 

pleasure; or any waters that have been declared 

navigable by the Congress of the United States" 

and/or the California State Lands Commission.

Hydropower Generation (POW) - Uses of water for 

hydropower generation.

Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) - Uses of water for 

recreational activities involving body contact with 

water, where ingestion of water is reasonably 

possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, 

swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba 

diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of 

natural hot springs.

Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) - Uses of 

water for recreational activities involving proximity to 

water, but not normally involving body contact with 

water, where ingestion of water is reasonably 

possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, 

picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, 

camping, boating tidepool and marine life study, 

hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in 

conjunction with the above activities.

Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM) - Uses of 

water for commercial or recreational collection of fish, 

shellfish, or other organisms including, but not limited 

to, uses involving organisms intended for human 

consumption or bait purposes.

Aquaculture (AQUA) - Uses of water for aquaculture 

or mariculture operations including, but not limited to, 

propagation, cultivation, maintenance, or harvesting of 

aquatic plants and animals for human consumption or 

bait purposes.

Warm Fresh Water Habitat (WARM) - Uses of water 

that support warm water ecosystems including, but 

not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic 

habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including 

invertebrates.

Cold Fresh Water Habitat (COLD) - Uses of water that 

support cold water ecosystems including, but not 

limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic 

habitats, vegetation, fish or wildlife, including 

invertebrates.

Inland Saline Water Habitat (SAL) - Uses of water that 

support inland saline water ecosystems including, but 

not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic 

saline habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including 

invertebrates. Soda Lake is a saline habitat typical of 

desert lakes in inland sinks.
June 8, 2011 II-20

Estuarine Habitat (EST) - Uses of water that support 

estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to, 

preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, 

vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine 

mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds). An estuary is 

generally described as a semi-enclosed body of water 

having a free connection with the open sea, at least 

part of the year and within which the seawater is 

diluted at least seasonally with fresh water drained 

from the land. Included are water bodies which would 

naturally fit the definition if not controlled by tidegates 

or other such devices.

Marine Habitat (MAR) - Uses of water that support 

marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, 

preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, 

vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., 

marine mammals, shorebirds).

Wildlife Habitat (WILD) - Uses of water that support 

terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, 

preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, 

vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, 

amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food 

sources.

Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special 

Significance (BIOL) - Uses of water that support 

designated areas or habitats, such as established 

refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, or 

Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), 

where the preservation or enhancement of natural 

resources requires special protection.

Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) -

Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least 

in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of 

plant or animal species established under state or 

federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.

Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) - Uses of 

water that support habitats necessary for migration or 

other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such 

as anadromous fish.

Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development

(SPWN) - Uses of water that support high quality 

aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early 

development of fish.

Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL) - Uses of water that 

support habitats suitable for the collection of filterfeeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels) 

for human consumption, commercial, or sport 

purposes. This includes waters that have in the past, 

or may in the future, contain significant shellfisheries.

Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) - are 

those areas designated by the State Water Resources 

Control Board as requiring protection of species or 

biological communities to the extent that alteration of 

natural water quality is undesirable.

The following areas have been designated Areas of 

Special Biological Significance in the Central Coastal 

Basin:

1. Ano Nuevo Point and Island, San Mateo County

2 Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge and 

Hopkins Marine Life Refuge, Monterey County

3. Point Lobos Ecological Reserve, Monterey County

4. Carmel Bay, Monterey County

5 Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park, Monterey 

County

6. Ocean area surrounding the mouth of Salmon 

Creek, Monterey County

7. Channel Islands, Santa Barbara County - San 

Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz

An ASBS designation implies the following 

requirements:

Discharge of elevated temperature wastes in a 

manner that would alter water quality conditions from 

those occurring naturally will be prohibited.

Discharge of discrete, point source sewage or 

industrial process wastes in a manner that would alter 

water quality conditions from those occurring naturally 

will be prohibited.

Discharge of waste from nonpoint sources, including 

but not limited to storm water runoff, silt, and urban 

runoff, will be controlled to the extent practicable. In 

control programs for waste from nonpoint sources, 

Regional Boards will give high priority to areas 

tributary to ASBS.

Further information concerning ASBS areas can be 

found by reviewing Regional Board Policies in 

Chapter Five.
June 8, 2011 III-1

CHAPTER 3. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Section 13241, Division 7 of the California Water 

Code specifies that each Regional Water Quality 

Control Board shall establish water quality objectives 

which, in the Regional Board's judgment, are 

necessary for the reasonable protection of beneficial 

uses and for the prevention of nuisance.

Section 303 of the 1972 Amendments to the federal 

Water Pollution Control Act requires the State to 

submit to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for approval, all new or 

revised water quality standards which are established 

for surface and ocean waters. Under federal 

terminology, water quality standards consist of 

beneficial uses enumerated in Chapter Two and 

water quality objectives contained in this chapter.

Water quality objectives contained herein are 

designed to satisfy all State and federal 

requirements.

As new information becomes available, the Regional 

Board will review the appropriateness of objectives 

contained herein. These objectives are subject to 

public hearing at least once during each three-year 

period following adoption of this plan for the purpose 

of review and modification as appropriate.

I. CONSIDERATIONS IN 

SELECTING WATER 

QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The aforementioned 1972 Amendments to the federal 

Water Pollution Control Act declare that a national 

goal is elimination of discharge of pollutants into 

navigable waters.

A prerequisite to water quality control planning is the 

establishment of a base or reference point. The base 

in this instance was various general and specific 

water quality criteria previously found acceptable for 

particular beneficial uses or selected sources of 

waste. Current technical guidelines, available 

historical data, and enforcement feasibility were given 

full consideration in formulating water quality 

objectives.

A distinction is made here between the terms "water 

quality objectives" and "water quality standards". 

Water quality objectives have been adopted by the 

State and, when applicable, extended as federal 

water quality standards. Water quality standards, 

previously mentioned in this chapter's introduction, 

pertain to navigable waters and become legally 

enforceable criteria when accepted by the U.S. EPA 

Regional Administrator.

Point and nonpoint water pollution sources described 

herein have the same meaning as defined in the 

federal Water Pollution Control Act. Point sources 

are waste loads from identifiable sources such as 

municipal discharges, industrial discharges, vessels, 

controllable storm waters, fish hatchery discharges, 

confined animal operations, and agricultural drains. 

Nonpoint sources are waste loads resulting from land 

use practices where wastes are not collected and 

disposed of in any readily identifiable manner. 

Examples include: urban drainage, agricultural runoff, 

road construction activities, mining, grassland 

management, logging and other harvest activities, 

and natural sources such as effects of fire, flood, and 

landslide. The distinction between point sources and 

diffuse sources is not always clear but generally 

applies to the practicality of waste load control.

Water quality objectives for the Central Coastal Basin 

satisfy State and federal requirements to protect 

waters for the beneficial uses in Chapter Two and are 

consistent with all existing statewide plans and 

policies.
June 8, 2011 III-2

II. WATER QUALITY 

OBJECTIVES

The water quality objectives which follow supersede 

and replace those contained in the 1967 Water 

Quality Control Policies; the Interim Water Quality 

Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin adopted by 

the Regional Board in 1971, including all existing 

revisions; and the Water Quality Control Plan Report 

for the Central Coastal Basin, adopted by the 

Regional Board in 1974.

Controllable water quality shall conform to the water 

quality objectives contained herein. When other 

conditions cause degradation of water quality beyond 

the levels or limits established as water quality 

objectives, controllable conditions shall not cause 

further degradation of water quality.

Controllable water quality conditions are those 

actions or circumstances resulting from man's 

activities that may influence the quality of the waters 

of the State and that may be reasonably controlled.

Water quality objectives are considered to be 

necessary to protect those present and probable 

future beneficial uses enumerated in Chapter Two of 

this plan and to protect existing high quality waters of 

the State. These objectives will be achieved primarily 

through the establishment of waste discharge 

requirements and through implementation of this 

water quality control plan.

In setting waste discharge requirements, the 

Regional Board will consider the potential impact on 

beneficial uses within the area of influence of the 

discharge, the existing quality of receiving waters, 

and the appropriate water quality objectives. The 

Regional Board will make a finding of beneficial uses 

to be protected and establish waste discharge 

requirements to protect those uses and to meet water 

quality objectives.

Several water quality objectives listed herein originate 

from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. If 

Title 22 concentrations are amended, Basin Plan 

objectives are automatically amended to correspond 

with the new regulations.

II.A. ANTI-DEGRADATION 

POLICY

Wherever the existing quality of water is better than 

the quality of water established herein as objectives, 

such existing quality shall be maintained unless 

otherwise provided by the provisions of the State 

Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 

68-16, "Statement of Policy with Respect to 

Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California," 

including any revisions thereto. A copy of this policy 

is included in the Appendix.

II.A.1. OBJECTIVES FOR OCEAN 

WATERS

The provisions of the State Board's "Water Quality 

Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California" (Ocean 

Plan), "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of 

Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters 

and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California" 

(Thermal Plan), and any revisions thereto shall apply 

in their entirety to affected waters of the basin. The 

Ocean and Thermal Plans shall also apply in their 

entirety to Monterey Bay and Carmel Bay. Copies of 

these plans are included verbatim in the Appendix.

In addition to provisions of the Ocean Plan and 

Thermal Plan, the following objectives shall also 

apply to all ocean waters, including Monterey and 

Carmel Bays:

Dissolved Oxygen

The mean annual dissolved oxygen concentration 

shall not be less than 7.0 mg/l, nor shall the minimum 

dissolved oxygen concentration be reduced below 5.0 

mg/l at any time.

pH

The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0, nor 

raised above 8.5.

Radioactivity

Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations 

that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life; or result in the accumulation of 

radionuclides in the food web to an extent which 
June 8, 2011 III-3

presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or aquatic 

life.

II.A.2. OBJECTIVES FOR ALL 

INLAND SURFACE WATERS, 

ENCLOSED BAYS, AND 

ESTUARIES

II.A.2.a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES

The following objectives apply to all inland surface 

waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries of the basin:

Color 

Waters shall be free of coloration that causes 

nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. 

Coloration attributable to materials of waste origin 

shall not be greater than 15 units or 10 percent above 

natural background color, whichever is greater.

Tastes and Odors

Waters shall not contain taste or odor-producing 

substances in concentrations that impart undesirable 

tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products 

of aquatic origin, that cause nuisance, or that 

adversely affect beneficial uses.

Floating Material 

Waters shall not contain floating material, including 

solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations 

that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial 

uses.

Suspended Material

Waters shall not contain suspended material in 

concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely 

affect beneficial uses.

Settleable Material

Waters shall not contain settleable material in 

concentrations that result in deposition of material 

that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial 

uses.

Oil and Grease

Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or 

other similar materials in concentrations that result in 

a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or 

on objects in the water, that cause nuisance, or that 

otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses.

Biostimulatory Substances

Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in 

concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the 

extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely 

affect beneficial uses.

Sediment 

The suspended sediment load and suspended 

sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not 

be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or 

adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Turbidity 

Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause 

nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Increase in turbidity attributable to controllable water 

quality factors shall not exceed the following limits:

1. Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 50 

Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU), increases shall not 

exceed 20 percent.

2. Where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 

JTU, increases shall not exceed 10 JTU.

3. Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 JTU, 

increases shall not exceed 10 percent.

Allowable zones of dilution within which higher 

concentrations will be tolerated will be defined for 

each discharge in discharge permits.
June 8, 2011 III-4

pH

For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, 

the pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or 

raised above 8.5.

Dissolved Oxygen

For waters not mentioned by a specific beneficial use, 

dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced 

below 5.0 mg/l at any time. Median values should not 

fall below 85 percent saturation as a result of 

controllable water quality conditions.

Temperature

Temperature objectives for Enclosed Bays and 

Estuaries are as specified in the "Water Quality 

Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the 

Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays 

and Estuaries of California" including any revisions 

thereto. A copy of this plan is included in the 

Appendix.

Natural receiving water temperature of intrastate 

waters shall not be altered unless it can be 

demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional 

Board that such alteration in temperature does not 

adversely affect beneficial uses.

Toxicity 

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic 

substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or 

which produce detrimental physiological responses 

in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance 

with this objective will be determined by use of 

indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, 

population density, growth anomalies, toxicity 

bioassays of appropriate duration, or other 

appropriate methods as specified by the Regional 

Board.

Survival of aquatic life in surface waters subjected to 

a waste discharge or other controllable water quality 

conditions, shall not be less than that for the same 

water body in areas unaffected by the waste 

discharge or, when necessary, for other control water 

that is consistent with the requirements for 

"experimental water" as described in Standard 

Methods for the Examination of Water and 

Wastewater, latest edition. As a minimum, 

compliance with this objective shall be evaluated with 

a 96-hour bioassay.

In addition, effluent limits based upon acute 

bioassays of effluents will be prescribed where 

appropriate, additional numerical receiving water 

objectives for specific toxicants will be established as 

sufficient data become available, and source control 

of toxic substances is encouraged.

The discharge of wastes shall not cause 

concentrations of unionized ammonia (NH3) to 

exceed 0.025 mg/l (as N) in receiving waters.

Pesticides

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides 

shall reach concentrations that adversely affect 

beneficial uses. There shall be no increase in 

pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments 

or aquatic life.

For waters where existing concentrations are 

presently nondetectable or where beneficial uses 

would be impaired by concentrations in excess of 

nondetectable levels, total identifiable chlorinated 

hydrocarbon pesticides shall not be present at 

concentrations detectable within the accuracy of 

analytical methods prescribed in Standard Methods 

for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, latest 

edition, or other equivalent methods approved by the 

Executive Officer.

Chemical Constituents

Where wastewater effluents are returned to land for 

irrigation uses, regulatory controls shall be consistent 

with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations 

and other relevant local controls.

Other Organics 

Waters shall not contain organic substances in 

concentrations greater than the following:

Methylene Blue Activated Substances 0.2 mg/l

Phenols 0.1 mg/l 

PCB's 0.3 g/l 

Phthalate Esters 0.002 g/l 
June 8, 2011 III-5

Radioactivity

Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations 

that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life; or result in the accumulation of 

radionuclides in the food web to an extent which 

presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life.

MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC SUPPLY 

(MUN)

pH

The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 

nor raised above 8.3.

Organic Chemicals

All inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and 

estuaries shall not contain concentrations of organic 

chemicals in excess of the limiting concentrations set 

forth in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, 

Chapter 15, Article 5.5, Section 64444.5, Table 5 and 

listed in Table 3-1.

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical 

constituents in excess of the limits specified in 

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 4, 

Chapter 15, Section 64435, Tables 2 and 3 as listed 

in Table 3-2.

Phenol

Waters shall not contain phenol concentrations in 

excess of 1.0 g/l.

Radioactivity

Waters shall not contain concentrations of 

radionuclides in excess of the limits specified in 

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, 

Article 5, Sections 64441 and 64443, Table 4.

AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY (AGR)

pH

The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 

nor raised above 8.3.

Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be reduced 

below 2.0 mg/l at any time.

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical 

constituents in amounts which adversely affect the 

agricultural beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse 

effect shall be as derived from the University of 

California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines 

provided in Table 3-3.

In addition, waters used for irrigation and livestock 

watering shall not exceed concentrations for those 

chemicals listed in Table 3-4. Salt concentrations for 

irrigation waters shall be controlled through 

implementation of the anti-degradation policy to the 

effect that mineral constituents of currently or 

potentially usable waters shall not be increased. It is 

emphasized that no controllable water quality factor 

shall degrade the quality of any ground water 

resource or adversely affect long-term soil 

productivity.

Where wastewater effluents are returned to land for 

irrigation uses, regulatory controls shall be consistent 

with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations 

and with relevant controls for local irrigation sources.

WATER CONTACT RECREATION (REC-1)

pH

The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 

nor raised above 8.3.
June 8, 2011 III-6

Table 3-1. Organic Concentrations Not to be Exceeded in Domestic or Municipal Supply

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Maximum

Contaminant

Constituent Level (MCL), mg/l

__________________________________________________________________________________________

(a) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons

Endrin 0.0002

Lindane 0.004

Methoxychlor 0.1

Toxaphene 0.005

(b) Chlorophenoxys

2,4-D 0.1

2,4,5-TP Silvex 0.01

(c) Synthetics

Atrazine 0.003

Bentazon 0.018

Benzene 0.001

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.0005

Carbofuran 0.018

Chlordane 0.0001

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.0002

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.005

1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.0005

cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.006

trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01

1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.006

1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005

1,3-Dichloropropene 0.0005

Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.004

Ethylbenzene 0.680

Ethylene Dibromide 0.00002

Glyphosate 0.7

Heptachlor 0.00001

Heptachlor epoxide 0.00001

Molinate 0.02

Monochlorobenzene 0.030

Simazine 0.010

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.001

Tetrachloroethylene 0.005

Thiobencarb 0.07

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.200

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.032

Trichloroethylene 0.005

Trichlorofluromethane 0.15

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane 1.2

Vinyl Chloride 0.0005

*Xylenes 1.750

__________________________________________________________________________________________

* MCL is for either a single isomer or the sum of the isomers.
June 8, 2011 III-7

Table 3-2. Inorganic and Fluoride Concentrations Not to be Exceeded in Domestic or Municipal 

Supply

Limiting Concentration ,mg/l

Constituent Lower Optimum Upper

Maximum

Contaminant

Level

Temperature °F* Fluoride

53.7 and below 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.4

53.8 to 58.3 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.2

58.4 to 63.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0

63.9 to 70.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.8

70.7 to 79.2 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.6

79.3 to 90.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.4

Inorganic Chemicals Maximum

Contaminant

Level

Aluminum 1

Arsenic 0.05

Barium 1

Cadmium 0.010

Chromium 0.05

Lead 0.05

Mercury 0.002

Nitrate (as NO3) 45

Selenium 0.01

Silver 0.05

*Annual Average of Maximum Daily Air Temperature, oF based on temperature data obtained for a minimum 

of five years. 
June 8, 2011 III-8

Table 3-3. Guidelines for Interpretation of Quality of Water for Irrigationa

Water Quality Guidelines

Problem and Related Constituent No Problem Increasing Problems Severe

Salinityb

EC of irrigation water, mmho/cm <0.75 0.75 - 3.0 >3.0

Permeability

EC of irrigation water, mmho/cm >0.5 <0.5 <0.2

SAR, adjustedc<6.0 6.0 - 9.0 >9.0

Specific ion toxicity from root absorption d

Sodium (evaluate by adjusted SAR) <3 3.0 - 9.0 >9.0

Chloride

me/l <4 4.0 - 10 >10

mg/l <142 142 - 355 >355

Boron, mg/l <0.5 0.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 10.0

Specific ion toxicity from foliar absorptione(sprinklers)

Sodium

me/l <3.0 >3.0 --

mg/l <69 >69 --

Chloride

me/l <3.0 >3.0 --

mg/l <106 >106 --

Miscellaneousf

NH4 - N, mg/l for sensitive crops <5 5 - 30 >30

NO3 - N, mg/l for sensitive crops <5 5 - 30 >30

HCO3 (only with overhead sprinklers)

me/l <1.5 1.5 - 8.5 >8.5

mg/l <90 90 - 520 >520

pH Normal range 6.5 - 8.4 --

a Interpretations are based on possible effects of constituents on crops and/or soils. Guidelines are flexible and should be modified when warranted 

by local experience or special conditions of crop, soil, and method of irrigation. 

b Assumes water for crop plus needed water for leaching requirement (LR) will be applied. Crops vary in tolerance to salinity. Refer to tables for 

crop tolerance and LR. The mmho/cm x 640 = approximate total dissolved solids (TDS) in mg/l or ppm; mmho x 1,000 = micromhos. 

c Adjusted SAR (sodium adsorption ratio) is calculated from a modified equation developed by U.S. Salinity Laboratory to include added effects of 

precipitation and dissolution of calcium in soils and related to CO3 + HCO3 concentrations.

To evaluate sodium (permeability) hazard: Adjusted SAR = Na/[1/2 (Ca + Mg)] 1/2[1+ (8.4 - pHc)].

Refer to Appendix for calculation assistance. 

SAR can be reduced if necessary by adding gypsum. Amount of gypsum required (GR) to reduce a hazardous SAR to any desired SAR (SAR 

desired) can be calculated as follows:

Note: Na and Ca + Mg should be in me/l. GR will be in lbs. of 100 percent gypsum per acre foot of applied water. 

d Most tree crops and woody ornamentals are sensitive to sodium and chloride (use values shown). Most annual crops are not sensitive

(use salinity tolerance tables). For boron sensitivity, refer to boron tolerance tables. 

e Leaf areas wet by sprinklers (rotating heads) may show a leaf burn due to sodium or chloride absorption under low humidity/high evaporation 

conditions. (Evaporation increases ion concentration in water films on leaves between rotations of sprinkler heads.) 

f Excess N may affect production or quality of certain crops; e.g., sugar beets, citrus, avocados, apricots, etc.

(1 mg/l NO3 - N = 2.72 lbs. N/acre foot of applied water.) HCO3 with overhead sprinkler irrigation may cause a white carbonate deposit to form on 

fruit and leaves.

(Ca+Mg) 234

SAR desired

2(Na )

GR =

2

2
June 8, 2011 III-9

Table 3-4. Water Quality Objectives for Agricultural Water Use

________________________________________________________________________________________

Maximum Concentration (mg/l)a

ELEMENT Irrigation Livestock

supplyb watering

________________________________________________________________________________________

Aluminum 5.0 5.0

Arsenic 0.1 0.2

Beryllium 0.1 --

Boron 0.75 5.0

Cadmium 0.01 0.05

Chromium 0.10 1.0

Cobalt 0.05 1.0

Copper 0.2 0.5

Fluoride 1.0 2.0

Iron 5.0 --

Lead 5.0 0.1c

Lithium 2.5d --

Manganese 0.2 --

Mercury -- 0.01

Molybdenum 0.01 0.5 

Nickel 0.2 --

Nitrate + Nitrite -- 100

Nitrite -- 10

Selenium 0.02 0.05

Vanadium 0.1 0.10

Zinc 2.0 25

________________________________________________________________________________________

a. Values based primarily on "Water Quality Criteria 1972" National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineers, Environmental 

Study Board, ad hoc Committee on Water Quality Criteria furnished as recommended guidelines by University of California Agriculture 

Extension Service, January 7, 1974; maximum values are to be considered as 90 percentile values not to be exceeded.

b. Values provided will normally not adversely affect plants or soils; no data available for mercury, silver, tin, titanium, and tungsten.

c. Lead is accumulative and problems may begin at threshold value (0.05 mg/l).

d. Recommended maximum concentration for irrigation citrus is 0.075 mg/l.
June 8, 2011 III-10

Bacteria

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 

not less than five samples for any 30-day period, 

shall not exceed a log mean of 200/100 ml, nor shall 

more than ten percent of total samples during any 

30-day period exceed 400/100 ml.

NON-CONTACT WATER RECREATION

(REC-2)

pH

The pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 

nor raised above 8.3.

Bacteria

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of 

not less than five samples for any 30-day period, 

shall not exceed a log mean of 2000/100 ml, nor shall 

more than ten percent of samples collected during 

any 30-day period exceed 4000/100 ml.

COLD FRESHWATER HABITAT (COLD)

pH

The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or 

raised above 8.5. Changes in normal ambient pH 

levels shall not exceed 0.5 in fresh waters.

Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be 

reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time.

Temperature

At no time or place shall the temperature be 

increased by more than 5oF above natural receiving 

water temperature.

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical 

constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife 

in excess of the limits listed in Table 3-5.

WARM FRESHWATER HABITAT (WARM)

pH

The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or 

raised above 8.5.

Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not 

exceed 0.5 in fresh waters.

Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be 

reduced below 5.0 mg/l at any time.

Temperature

At no time or place shall the temperature of any water 

be increased by more than 5oF above natural 

receiving temperature.

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical 

constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife 

in excess of the limits listed in Table 3-5.

FISH SPAWNING (SPWN)

Cadmium

Cadmium shall not exceed .003 mg/l in hard water or 

.0004 mg/l in soft water at any time. (Hard water is 

defined as water exceeding 100 mg/l CaCO3.)

Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be 

reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time.
June 8, 2011 III-11

Table 3-5. Toxic Metal Concentrations not to be Exceeded in Aquatic Life Habitats, mg/la,b 

Freshwater (COLD, WARM)

METAL HARD

(> 100 mg/l CaCO3)

 SOFT

(< 100 mg/l CaCO3)

Cadmiumc.03 .004

Chromium .05 .05 

Copper .03 .01 

Lead .03 .03 

Mercuryd.0002 .0002

Nickele.4 .1 

Zinc .2 .004 

a. Based on limiting values recommended in the National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineers "Water Quality Criteria 

1972." Values are 90 percentile values except as noted in qualifying note "d." 

b. Revision of Table 3-5 is currently in progress by the Regional Board.

c. Lower cadmium values not to be exceeded for crustaceans and waters designated SPWN are 0.003 mg/l in hard water and 0.0004 mg/l 

in soft water.

d. Total mercury values should not exceed 0.05 g/l as an average value; maximum acceptable concentration of total mercury in any 

aquatic organism is a total B.O.D. burden of 0.5 g/l wet weight.

e. Value cited as objective pertains to nickel salts (not pure metallic nickel).
June 8, 2011 III-12

MARINE HABITAT (MAR)

pH

The pH value shall not be depressed below 7.0 or 

raised above 8.5.

Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not 

exceed 0.2 units.

Dissolved Oxygen

The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be 

reduced below 7.0 mg/l at any time.

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical 

constituents known to be deleterious to fish or wildlife 

in excess of limits listed in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6. Toxic Metal Concentrations Not to be 

Exceeded in Marine Habitats, mg/la

__________________________________________

METAL MARINE (MAR)

__________________________________________

Cadmium .0002

Chromium .05

Copper .01

Lead .01

Mercuryc.0001

Nickeld.002

Zinc .02

__________________________________________

a. Based on limiting values recommended in the National 

Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineers "Water 

Quality Criteria 1972." Values are 90 percentile values except 

as noted in qualifying note "c."

b. Revision of Table 3-6 is currently in progress by the Regional 

Board.

c. Total mercury values should not exceed 0.05 g/l as an 

average value; maximum acceptable concentration of total 

mercury in any aquatic organism is a total B.O.D. burden of 

0.05 g/l net weight.

d. Value cited as objective pertains to nickel salts (not pure 

metallic nickel).

SHELLFISH HARVESTING (SHELL)

Chromium

The maximum permissible value for waters 

designated SHELL shall be 0.01 mg/l.

Bacteria

At all areas where shellfish may be harvested for 

human consumption, the median total coliform 

concentration throughout the water column for any 

30-day period shall not exceed 70/100 ml, nor shall 

more than ten percent of the samples collected 

during any 30-day period exceed 230/100 ml for a 

five-tube decimal dilution test or 330/100 ml when a 

three-tube decimal dilution test is used.

II.A.3. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 

FOR SPECIFIC INLAND SURFACE 

WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS AND 

ESTUARIES

Certain water quality objectives have been 

established for selected surface waters; these 

objectives are intended to serve as a water quality 

baseline for evaluating water quality management in 

the basin. Median values, shown in Table 3-7 for 

surface waters, are based on available data. 

It must be recognized that the median values 

indicated in Table 3-7 are values representing gross 

areas of a water body. Specific water quality 

objectives for a particular area may not be directly 

related to the objectives indicated. Therefore, 

application of these objectives must be based upon 

consideration of the surface and ground water quality 

naturally present; i.e., waste discharge requirements 

must adhere to the previously stated objectives and 

issuance of requirements must be tempered by 

consideration of beneficial uses within the immediate 

influence of the discharge, the existing quality of 

receiving waters, and water quality objectives. 

Consideration of beneficial uses includes: (1) a 

specific enumeration of all beneficial uses potentially 

to be affected by the waste discharge, (2) a 

determination of the relative importance of competing 

beneficial uses, and (3) impact of the discharge on 

existing beneficial uses. The Regional Board will 

make a judgment as to the priority of dominant use 

and minimize the impact on competing uses while not 

allowing the discharge to violate receiving water 

quality objectives.
June 8, 2011 III-13

Table 3-7. Surface Water Quality Objectives, mg/la

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sub-Basin/Sub-Area TDS Cl SO4 B Na

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Santa Ynez

Cachuma Reservoir 600 20 220 0.4 50

Solvang 700 50 250 0.4 60

Lompoc 1000 100 350 0.4 100

Santa Maria

Cuyama River (Near Garey) 900 50 400 0.3 70

Sisquoc River (Near Garey) 600 20 250 0.2 50

Estero Bay 

Santa Rosa Creek 500 50 80 0.2 50

Chorro Creek 500 50 50 0.2 50

San Luis Obispo Creek 650 100 100 0.2 50

Arroyo Grande Creek 800 50 200 0.2 50

Salinas River

Salinas River 

Above Bradley 250 20 100 0.2 20

Above Spreckles 600 80 125 0.2 70

Gabilan Tributary 300 50 50 0.2 50

Diablo Tributary 1200 80 700 0.5 150

Nacimiento River 200 20 50 0.2 20

San Antonio River 250 20 80 0.2 20

Carmel River 200 20 50 0.2 20

Monterey Coastal

Big Sur River 200 20 20 0.2 20

Pajaro River

at Chittenden 1000 250 250 1.0 200

San Benito River 1400 200 350 1.0 250

Llagas Creek 200 10 20 0.2 20

Big Basin 

Boulder Creek 150 10 10 0.2 20

Zayante Creek 500 50 100 0.2 40

San Lorenzo River

Above Bear Creek 400 60 80 0.2 50

At Tait Street Check Dam 250 30 60 0.2 25

__________________________________________________________________________________________

a Objectives shown are annual mean values. Objectives are based on preservation of existing quality or water quality enhancement 

believed attainable following control of point sources.
June 8, 2011 III-14

As part of the State's continuing planning process, 

data will be collected and numerical water quality 

objectives will be developed for those mineral and 

nutrient constituents where sufficient information is 

presently not available for the establishment of such 

objectives.

II.A.4. OBJECTIVES FOR GROUND 

WATER

II.A.4.a. GENERAL OBJECTIVES

The following objectives apply to all ground waters 

of the basin.

Tastes and Odors

Ground waters shall not contain taste or odor 

producing substances in concentrations that 

adversely affect beneficial uses.

Radioactivity

Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations 

that are deleterious to human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life; or result in the accumulation of 

radionuclides in the food web to an extent which 

presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life.

MUNICIPAL AND DOMESTIC SUPPLY 

(MUN)

Bacteria

The median concentration of coliform organisms 

over any seven-day period shall be less than 

2.2/100 ml.

Organic Chemicals

Ground waters shall not contain concentrations of 

organic chemicals in excess of the limiting

concentrations set forth in California Code of 

Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, Article 5.5, 

Section 64444.5, Table 5 and listed in Table 3-1.

Chemical Constituents

Ground waters shall not contain concentrations of 

chemical constituents in excess of the limits 

specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, 

Chapter 15, Article 4, Section 64435, Tables 2 

and 3.

Radioactivity

Ground waters shall not contain concentrations of 

radionuclides in excess of the limits specified in 

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, 

Article 5, Section 64443, Table 4.

AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY (AGR)

Ground waters shall not contain concentrations of 

chemical constituents in amounts that adversely 

affect such beneficial use. Interpretation of adverse 

effect shall be as derived from the University of 

California Agricultural Extension Service guidelines 

provided in Table 3-3.

In addition, water used for irrigation and livestock 

watering shall not exceed the concentrations for 

those chemicals listed in Table 3-4. No controllable 

water quality factor shall degrade the quality of any 

ground water resource or adversely affect long-term 

soil productivity. The salinity control aspects of 

ground water management will account for effects 

from all sources.

II.A.5. OBJECTIVES FOR 

SPECIFIC GROUND WATERS

Certain water quality objectives have been 

established for selected ground waters; these 

objectives are intended to serve as a water quality 

baseline for evaluating water quality management in 

the basin. The median values for ground waters are 

shown in Table 3-8. 

The restrictions specified for Table 3-7 are 

applicable to the values indicated in Table 3-8; i.e., 

the values are at best representative of gross areas 

only. Ground waters in the Upper Valley of the 

Salinas River Sub-basin have average Total 

Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations that range 

from 300 mg/l to over 3000 mg/l. Therefore, 

application of these objectives must be consistent 

with the objectives previously stated in this chapter 

and synchronously reflect the actual ground water 
June 8, 2011 III-15

quality naturally present. The Regional Board must 

afford full consideration to: (1) present and probable 

future beneficial uses affected by the waste 

discharge; (2) competing beneficial uses; (3) degree 

of impact on existing beneficial uses; (4) receiving 

water quality; and (5) water quality objectives, before 

adjudging priority of dominant use and promulgating 

waste discharge requirements.

As part of the State's continuing planning process, 

data will be collected and numerical water quality 

objectives will be developed for those mineral 

constituents where sufficient information is presently 

not available for the establishment of such 

objectives.
June 8, 2011 III-16

Table 3-8. Median Ground Water Objectives, mg/la

Sub-basin/Sub-Area TDS Cl SO4 B Na N

b

 

South Coast

Goleta 1000 150 250 0.2 150 5

Santa Barbara 700 50 150 0.2 100 5

Carpinteria 700 100 150 0.2 100 7

Santa Ynez

Santa Ynez 600 50 10 0.5 20 1

Santa Rita 1500 150 700 0.5 100 1

Lompoc Plainf1250 250 500 0.5 250 2

Lompoc Uplandf 600 150 100 0.5 100 2

Lompoc Terracef 750 210 100 0.3 130 1

San Antonio Creek 600 150 150 0.2 100 5

Santa Mariac

Upper Guadalupef1000d165 500d0.5 230 1.4e

Lower Guadalupef1000d 85 500d0.2 90 2.0e

Lower Nipomo Mesaf 710 95 250 0.15 90 5.7e

Orcuttf 740 65 300 0.1 65 2.3e

Santa Mariaf1000d 90 510 0.2 105 8.0e

Cuyama Valley 1500 80 -- 0.4 -- 5

Soda Lake 

e e e e e e

Estero Bay

Santa Rosa 700 100 80 0.2 50 5

Chorro 1000 250 100 0.2 50 5

San Luis Obispo 900 200 100 0.2 50 5

Arroyo Grande 800 100 200 0.2 50 10

Salinas River

Upper Valleyf 600 150 150 0.5 70 5

Upper Forebayf 800 100 250 0.5 100 5

Lower Forebayf1500 250 850 0.5 150 8

180 foot Aquiferf1500 250 600 0.5 250 1

400 foot Aquiferf 400 50 100 0.2 50 1

Paso Roblesg

Central Basinf 400 60 45 0.3 80 3.4

San Miguelf 750 100 175 0.5 105 4.5

Paso Roblesf1050 270 200 2.0 225 2.3

Templetonf 730 100 120 0.3 75 2.7

Atascaderof 550 70 85 0.3 65 2.3

Estrellaf 925 130 240 0.75 170 3.2

Shandon 1390 430 1025h2.8 730 2.3

Pajaro River

Hollister 1200 150 250 1.0 200 5

Tres Pinos 1000 150 250 1.0 150 5

Llagas 300 20 50 0.2 20 5

Big Basin

Near Felton 100 20 10 0.2 10 1

Near Boulder Creek 250 30 50 0.2 20 5

a Objectives shown are median values based on data averages; objectives are based on preservation of existing quality or water quality 

enhancement believed attainable following control of point sources. 

b Measured as Nitrogen 

c Basis for objectives is in the "Water Quality Objectives for the Santa Maria Ground Water Basin Revised Staff Report, May 1985" and 

February 1986, Staff Report.

d These are maximum objectives in accordance with Title 22 of the Code of Regulations.

e Ground water basin currently exceeds usable mineral quality.

f Ground water basin boundary map available in appendix.

g Basis for objectives is in the report "A Study of the Paso Robles Ground Water Basin to Establish Best Management Practices and 

Establish Salt Objectives", Coastal Resources Institute, June 1993.

h Standard exceeds California Secondary Drinking Water Standards contained in Title 22 of the Code of Regulations. Water quality 

standard is based upon existing water quality. If water quality degradation occurs, the Regional Board may consider salt limits on 

appropriate discharges. 
June 8, 2011 IV-1

CHAPTER 4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

A program of implementation to protect beneficial 

uses and to achieve water quality objectives is an 

integral component of this Basin Plan. The program 

of implementation is required to include, but is not 

limited to:

A description of the nature of actions which are 

necessary to achieve the objectives, including 

recommendations for appropriate action by any 

entity, public or private.

A time schedule for the actions to be taken.

A description of surveillance to be undertaken to 

determine compliance with objectives.

Additional surveillance activities to determine 

compliance with objectives are described in Chapter 

Six, "Surveillance and Monitoring".

This chapter includes discussions of:

Regional Water Quality Control Board Goals;

General Control Actions and Related Issues;

Waste Discharge Regulation;

Hazardous Waste Compliance Issues; and

Nonpoint Source Measures.

Detailed descriptions of waterbodies with their 

specific water quality problems and recommended 

control actions are included in the Region's Water 

Quality Assessment database and Fact Sheets.

This chapter is organized in the following manner:

I. Regional Water Quality Control Board Goals

II. General Control Actions and Related Issues

III. Control Actions under State Board Authority

IV. Control Actions to be Implemented by Other

Agencies with Water Quality or Related

Authority

V. Control Actions under Regional Board Authority

A. Waste Discharge Restrictions

1. Water Quality Certification

2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System

3. Waste Discharge Requirements

4. Waivers

5. Prohibitions and Prohibition Exemptions

6. Enforcement Actions

7. Best Management Practices

8. Compliance Schedules

B. Nonpoint Source Program

VI. Waste Discharge Program Implementation

A. Effluent Limits

1. Stream Disposal

2. Estuarine Disposal

3. Ocean Disposal

4. Land Disposal

5. Reclamation and Reuse

6. Pretreatment Programs

7. Sludge Treatment

B. Municipal Wastewater Management

Plans (arranged by hydrologic subarea)

C. Industrial Wastewater Management

D. Solid Waste Management

E. Storm Water Management

F. Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program

G. Military Installations

H. Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup

Program

I. Underground Tank Storage Tank Program

J. Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tanks

K. California Code of Regulations, Title 23,

Chapter 15

1. Solid and Liquid Waste Requirements

(Landfills and Surface Impoundments)

2. Wastewater Sludge (Septage

Management)

3. Mining Activities (Nonfuel Commodities)

4. Other Industrial Activities

L. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(Subtitle D)

M. Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test

VII. Hazardous Waste Compliance Issues

A. Reportable Quantities of Hazardous Waste

and Sewage Discharges

B. Proposition 65

VIII. Nonpoint Source Measures

A. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments

B. Urban Runoff Management

C. Agricultural Water and Wastewater

Management

D. Individual, Alternative, and Community 

Disposal Systems

E. Land Disturbance Activities
June 8, 2011 IV-2

I. REGIONAL WATER 

QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD GOALS

To insure that the water resources of the Central 

Coastal Basin are preserved for future generations of 

Californians, the California Regional Water Quality 

Control Board, Central Coast Region, determined it 

was desirable to establish certain planning goals. 

These goals pertain to utilization of the basin's water 

resources and guidelines for control of waste 

discharges, as follows:

1. Protect and enhance all basin waters, surface and 

underground, fresh and saline, for present and 

anticipated beneficial uses, including aquatic 

environmental values.

2. The quality of all surface waters shall allow 

unrestricted recreational use. 

3. Manage municipal and industrial wastewater 

disposal as part of an integrated system of fresh 

water supplies to achieve maximum benefit of 

fresh water resources for present and future 

beneficial uses and to achieve harmony with the 

natural environment. 

4 Achieve maximum effective use of fresh waters 

through reclamation and recycling.

5. Continually improve waste treatment systems and 

processes to assure consistent high quality 

effluent based on best economically achievable 

technology.

6. Reduce and prevent accelerated (man-caused) 

erosion to the level necessary to restore and 

protect beneficial uses of receiving waters now 

significantly impaired or threatened with 

impairment by sediment.

II. GENERAL CONTROL 

ACTIONS AND RELATED 

ISSUES

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional 

Board) regulates the sources of water quality related 

problems which could result in actual or potential 

impairment or degradation of beneficial uses or 

degradations of water quality. The Regional Board 

regulates both point and nonpoint source discharge 

activities. A point source discharge generally 

originates from a single identifiable source, while a 

nonpoint source discharge comes from diffuse 

sources. To regulate the point and nonpoint sources, 

control actions are required for effective water quality 

protection and management. Such control actions 

are set forth for implementation by the State Water 

Resources Control Board (State Board), by other 

agencies with water quality or related authority, and 

by the Regional Board.

III. CONTROL ACTIONS 

UNDER STATE WATER 

RESOURCES CONTROL 

BOARD AUTHORITY

The State Board has adopted several water quality 

plans and policies which complement or may 

supersede portions of the Water Quality Control Plan. 

These plans and policies may include specific control 

measures. See Chapter Five, "Plans and Policies" 

for summaries of the most significant State Board 

plans and policies which affect the Central Coast 

Region.
June 8, 2011 IV-3

IV. CONTROL ACTIONS TO 

BE IMPLEMENTED BY 

OTHER AGENCIES WITH 

WATER QUALITY OR 

RELATED AUTHORITY

Water quality Management Plans prepared under 

Section 208 of the federal Water Pollution Water 

Control Act (Clean Water Act) have been prepared by 

various public agencies. These Section 208 plans, 

as well as other plans adopted by federal, State, and 

local agencies, may affect the Regional Board's water 

quality management and control activities. A 

summary of relevant water quality management plans 

is included in Chapter Five, "Plans and Policies".

V. CONTROL ACTIONS 

UNDER REGIONAL BOARD 

AUTHORITY

Control measures implemented by the Regional 

Board must provide for the attainment of this Basin 

Plan's beneficial uses and water quality objectives. 

These uses and objectives can be found in Chapters 

Two and Three, respectively. In addition the control 

measures must be consistent with State Board and 

Regional Board plans, policies, agreements, 

prohibitions, guidance, and other restrictions and 

requirements contained within this document.

To prevent water quality problems, waste discharge 

restrictions are often used. The waste discharge 

restrictions can be implemented through Water 

Quality Certification, National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits, waste 

discharge requirements/permits (WDRs), discharge 

prohibitions, enforcement actions, and/or "Best 

Management Practices".

V.A. WASTE DISCHARGE 

RESTRICTIONS

V.A.1. WATER QUALITY 

CERTIFICATION

Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification gives the State extremely broad authority 

to review proposed federal activities in and/or 

affecting the Region's waters. The Regional Board 

can recommend to the State Board that it grant, deny, 

or condition certification of federal permits or licenses 

that may result in a discharge to "waters of the United 

States".

V.A.2. NATIONAL POLLUTANT 

DISCHARGE ELIMINATION 

SYSTEM (NPDES)

NPDES permits are issued to regulate discharges of 

waste from point sources to "waters of the United 

States" including discharges of storm waters from 

urban separate storm sewer systems and certain 

categories of industrial activity. Waters of the United 

States are surface waters such as rivers, intermittent 

streams, dry stream beds, lakes, bays, estuaries, 

oceans, etc. The permits are authorized by Section 

402 of the Clean Water Act and Section 13370 of the 

California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 

The permit content and the issuance process are 

contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

122 and Chapter 9 of the California Code of 

Regulations. Regional Water Boards are authorized 

to take a variety of enforcement actions to obtain 

compliance with an NPDES permit. Enforcement 

actions the Regional Board may take are described 

below.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA) has approved the State's program to regulate 

discharges of waste water from point sources to 

"waters of the United States". The State , through the 

Regional Water Boards, issues the NPDES permits, 

reviews discharger self-monitoring reports, 
June 8, 2011 IV-4

performs independent compliance checking, and 

takes enforcement actions as needed.

NPDES permits are required to prescribe conditions 

of discharge which will ensure protection of beneficial 

uses of the receiving water. The Regional Board 

uses this Basin Plan, the Ocean Plan, and water 

quality control policies adopted by the State Board to 

develop permits for specific types of discharges or 

uses of waste water. 

In addition to regulating discharges of waste water to 

surface waters, NPDES permits also require 

municipal sewage treatment systems to conduct 

pretreatment programs if their design capacity is 

greater than five million gallons per day. Smaller 

municipal treatment systems may be required to 

conduct pretreatment programs if there are significant 

industrial users of their systems. The pretreatment 

programs must comply with 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 403. The pretreatment program is 

further described under separate heading in the 

"Waste Discharge Regulation" Section further in this 

chapter.

V.A.3. WASTE DISCHARGE 

REQUIREMENTS (WDRs)

The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act authorizes Regional Boards to regulate 

discharges to protect ground and surface water 

quality. Regional Boards issue WDRs in accordance 

with Section 13263 of the California Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act. Regional Boards are 

required to review WDRs periodically based on the 

complexity and threat to water quality. WDRs seek to 

protect the beneficial uses of ground and surface 

water. Regional Boards issue WDRs, review selfmonitoring reports submitted by the discharger, 

perform independent compliance checking, and take 

necessary enforcement action. The California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act authorizes 

Regional Boards to issue enforcement actions (see 

below) ranging from orders requiring relatively simple 

corrective action to monetary penalties in order to 

obtain compliance with WDRs.

V.A.4. WAIVERS

Regional Boards may waive issuance of WDRs 

pursuant to California Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act Section 13269 if the Regional Board 

determines that such waiver is in the public interest. 

The requirement to submit a Report of Waste 

Discharge can also be waived. WDRs can be waived 

for a specific discharge or types of discharges. A 

waiver of WDRs is conditional and may be terminated 

at any time by the Regional Board. Regional Boards 

may delegate their power to waive WDRs to the 

Regional Board Executive Officer in accordance with 

policies adopted by the Regional Board and approved 

by the State Board. The Regional Board's general 

policy regarding waivers is described in Chapter Five, 

"Plans and Policies". Regional Boards may not waive 

NPDES permits.

V.A.5. PROHIBITIONS AND 

PROHIBITION EXEMPTIONS

The Regional Board can prohibit specific types of 

discharges to certain areas (California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act Section 13243). 

These discharge prohibitions may be revised, 

rescinded, or adopted as necessary. Discharge 

prohibitions are described in pertinent sections of 

Chapter Four, "Implementation Plan" and Chapter 

Five, "Plans and Policies" in the Regional Board 

Discharge Prohibition Section. Prohibitions can be 

found by referring to the Table of Contents.

V.A.6. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

To facilitate water quality problem remediation or 

Basin Plan violation remediation, the Regional Board 

can use different types of enforcement measures. 

These measures can include:

Notice of Violation

A Notice of Violation is a letter formally advising the 

discharger that the facility is in noncompliance and 
June 8, 2011 IV-5

that additional enforcement actions may be 

necessary, if appropriate actions are not taken.

Time Schedule

A Time Schedule (California Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act Section 13300) is a time schedule 

for specific actions a discharger shall take to correct 

or prevent violations of requirements. A Time 

Schedule is issued by the Regional Board for 

situations in which the Regional Board is reasonably 

confident that the problem will be corrected.

Cleanup or Abatement Order

A Cleanup or Abatement Order (California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act Section 13304) is 

an order requiring a discharger to clean up a waste or 

abate its effects or, in the case of a threatened 

pollution or nuisance, take other necessary remedial 

action. A Cleanup or Abatement Order can be issued 

by the Regional Board or by the Regional Board 

Executive Officer. Cleanup or Abatement Orders are 

issued for situations when action is needed to correct 

a problem caused by regulated or unregulated 

discharges which are creating or threatening to 

create a condition of pollution or nuisance. A 

Cleanup or Abatement Order is also used by the 

Regional Board to establish the acceptable level of 

cleanup.

Cease and Desist Order

A Cease and Desist Order (California Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act Section 13301) is an order 

requiring a discharger to comply with Waste 

Discharge Requirements or prohibitions according to 

a time schedule. If the violation is threatening water 

quality, a Cease and Desist Order can be used to 

require appropriate remedial or preventative action. 

A Cease and Desist Order is issued by the Regional 

Board when violations of requirements or prohibitions 

are threatened, are occurring, or have occurred and 

probably will continue in the future. Issuance of a 

Cease and Desist Order requires a public hearing.

Administrative Civil Liabilities

Administrative Civil Liabilities (monetary liabilities or 

fines) may also be imposed administratively by the 

Regional Board after a public hearing.

State Attorney General Referral

State Attorney General referral is used under certain 

circumstances. Enforcement actions may be referred 

to either the General or District Attorney.

V.A.7. BEST MANAGEMENT 

PRACTICES

Property owners, managers, or other dischargers 

may implement "Best Management Practices" to 

protect water quality. (Implementation and 

enforcement of Best Management Practices are 

discussed below under the "Nonpoint Source 

Measures" section of this chapter). The term "Best 

Management Practices" is used in reference to 

control measures for nonpoint source water pollutants 

and is analogous to the terms "Best Available 

Technology/Best Control Technology" used for 

control of point source pollutants. The U.S. EPA (40 

Code of Federal Regulations Section 103.2[m]) 

defines Best Management Practices as follows:

"Methods, measures, or practices selected by 

an agency to meet its nonpoint source control 

needs. Best Management Practices include, 

but are not limited to structural and 

nonstructural controls and operation and 

maintenance procedures. Best Management 

Practices can be applied before, during, and 

after pollution producing activities to reduce or 

eliminate the introduction of pollutants into 

receiving waters."

U.S. EPA regulations (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 103.6[b][4][i]) provide that Basin 

Plans:

"...shall describe the regulatory and 

nonregulatory programs, activities, and Best 

Management Practices which the agency has 

selected as the means to control nonpoint 

source pollution where necessary to protect or 

achieve approved water uses. Economic, 

institutional, and technical factors shall be 

considered in a continuing process of 

identifying control needs and evaluating and 

modifying the Best Management Practices as 

necessary to achieve water quality goals."
June 8, 2011 IV-6

Best Management Practices fall into two general 

categories:

1. Source controls which prevent a discharge or 

threatened discharge.

These may include measures such as recycling of 

used motor oil, fencing stream banks to prevent 

livestock entry, fertilizer management, street 

cleaning, revegetation and other erosion controls, 

and limits on total impervious surface coverage. 

Because the effectiveness of Best Management 

Practices is often uncertain, source control is 

generally preferable to treatment. It is also often less 

expensive.

2. Treatment controls which remove pollutants from 

a discharge before it reaches surface or ground 

waters.

Examples include infiltration facilities, oil/water 

separators, and constructed wetlands.

Several important points about Best Management 

Practices must be emphasized;

Best Management Practices are not officially 

considered "best" practices for use in California 

unless they have been certified by the State 

Board.

The use of Best Management Practices does not 

necessarily ensure compliance with effluent 

limitations or with receiving water objectives. 

Because nonpoint source control has been a 

priority only since the 1970's, the long-term 

effectiveness of some Best Management 

Practices has not yet been documented. Some 

source control Best Management Practices (e.g., 

waste motor oil recycling) may be 100 percent 

effective if implemented properly. Monitoring and 

evaluation of Best Management Practice 

effectiveness is an important part of nonpoint 

source control programs.

The selection of individual Best Management 

Practices must take into account specific site 

conditions (e.g., depth to ground water, quality of 

runoff, infiltration rates). Not all Best Management 

Practices are applicable at every location. High 

ground water levels may preclude the use of 

runoff infiltration facilities, while steep slopes may 

limit the use of wet ponds.

To be effective, most Best Management 

Practices must be implemented on a long term 

basis. Structural Best Management Practices 

(e.g., wet ponds and infiltration trenches) require 

periodic maintenance, and may eventually require 

replacement.

The "state-of-the-art" for Best Management 

Practices design and implementation is expected 

to change over time. The State planning process 

will include periodic review and update of Best 

Management Practices certifications.

General information on recommended nonpoint 

source management practices is provided under 

different water quality problem categories throughout 

this chapter. For detailed information on the design, 

implementation, and effectiveness of specific Best 

Management Practices, the reader should consult the 

appropriate Best Management Practices Handbook 

for the project type or location.

V.A.8. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES

The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act (Section 13242[b]) requires a Basin Plan's 

implementation program for achieving water quality 

objectives to include a "time schedule for the actions 

to be taken". Regional Board prohibitions are 

effective upon adoption, unless specifically 

mentioned otherwise. The Regional Board issues 

discharge permits. Each includes an effective date. 

(Often compliance is effective upon Regional Board 

adoption). Waste discharge permits for construction 

projects generally require implementation of Best 

Management Practices during and immediately after 

construction. Long-term maintenance of permanent 

Best Management Practices is expected. Regional 

Board enforcement orders for specific problems also 

generally include compliance schedules.

The 1975 Basin Plans included recommendations 

that specific studies be carried out by specific dates 

on community wastewater collection and treatment 

facilities needs in certain areas of the Central Coast 

Region. These plans also recommended that some 

communities construct specific facilities by the given 

dates. Most of these schedules were not met. 

Because expected year-to-year changes in 

availability of and priorities for funding will ensure that 

long term schedules are unrealistic, this Basin Plan 

does 
June 8, 2011 IV-7

not include such recommendations. Priorities are set 

on a short term basis for studies through the State 

Board's use of the Clean Water Strategy ranking 

system various grant programs, and for facilities 

construction through the State Board Division of 

Clean Water Programs needs assessment process 

for loans and grants. Once funding is allocated, 

completion schedules are set through the contract 

process.

V.B. NONPOINT SOURCE 

PROGRAM

Nonpoint source pollution has been identified as a 

major cause of water pollution throughout the United 

States, and the California Central Coast Region is no 

exception. Nonpoint sources of water pollution are 

generally defined as sources which are diffuse 

(spread out over a large area). These sources are 

not as easily regulated or controlled as are point 

sources. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by land 

use activities or anthropomorphic activities. 

Deposition of pollutants may occur in lakes, rivers, 

wetlands, coastal waters, or ground waters.

In order to address the nonpoint source pollution 

problem nationwide, the U.S. Congress incorporated 

Section 319 into the 1987 amendments to the Clean 

Water Act. By amending the Clean Water Act, 

Congress shifted the federal emphasis from nonpoint 

source pollution planning and problem identification 

to a new nonpoint source action program. Section 

319 of the federal Clean Water Act required each 

state to develop a State Nonpoint Source 

Management Program describing the measures the 

State would take to address nonpoint sources of 

pollution. In November 1988, the State Water 

Resources Control Board adopted a Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan which outlined steps to initiate the 

systematic management of nonpoint sources in 

California. For effective management of nonpoint 

sources the Management Plan required:

An explicit long-term commitment by the State 

Board and Regional Boards;

More effective coordination of existing State 

Board and Regional Board nonpoint source 

related programs;

Greater use of Regional Board regulatory 

authority coupled with nonregulatory Regional 

Board programs;

Stronger links between the local, State, and 

federal agencies which have authority to manage 

nonpoint sources; and

Development of new funding sources.

The 1988 State Board Nonpoint Source Management 

Plan advocates three approaches for addressing 

nonpoint source management:

1. Voluntary implementation of Best Management 

Practices

Property owners or managers may volunteer to 

implement Best Management Practices. 

Implementation could occur for economic reasons 

and/or through awareness of environmental benefits.

2. Enforcement of Best Management Practices

Although the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act constrains Regional Boards from 

specifying the manner of compliance with water 

quality standards, there are two ways in which 

Regional Boards can use their regulatory authorities 

to encourage implementation of Best Management 

Practices.

First, the Regional Board may encourage Best 

Management Practices by waiving adoption of waste 

discharge requirements on condition that discharges 

comply with Best Management Practices. 

Alternatively, the Regional Board may enforce Best 

Management Practices indirectly by entering into 

management agency agreements with other agencies 

which have the authority to enforce Best 

Management Practices.

The Regional Board will generally refrain from 

imposing effluent requirements on discharges that 

are implementing Best Management Practices in 

accordance with a waiver of waste discharger 

requirements, and approved Management Agency 

Agreements, or other State or Regional Board formal 

action.

3. Adoption of Effluent Limitations

The Regional Board can adopt and enforce 

requirements on the nature of any proposed or 

existing waste discharge, including discharges from 
June 8, 2011 IV-8

nonpoint sources. Although the Regional Board is 

precluded from specifying the manner of compliance 

with waste discharge limitations, in appropriate 

cases, limitations may be set at a level which, in 

practice, requires implementation of Best 

Management Practices.

Not all of the categories of nonpoint source pollution 

follow this three-tiered approach. For example, 

silviculture activities on non-federal lands are 

administered by the California Department of 

Forestry. The State Board has entered into a 

Management Agency Agreement with California 

Department of Forestry which allows the Regional 

Boards to review and inspect timber harvest plans 

and operations for implementation of Best 

Management Practices for protection of water quality.

The Regional Board approach to addressing or 

regulating categories of nonpoint source pollution is 

discussed in various sections throughout this chapter.

VI. WASTE DISCHARGE 

PROGRAM 

IMPLEMENTATION

Water Quality Control Plans to regulate wasteloads in 

the Central Coastal Basin have been developed to 

insure protection of beneficial uses of water 

described in Chapter Two, as well as water quality 

objectives described in Chapter Three.

VI.A. EFFLUENT LIMITS

Effluent limitations for disposal of wastes are based 

on water quality objectives for the area of effluent 

disposal and applicable State and federal policies 

and effluent limits. Water quality objectives and 

policies are based on beneficial uses established for 

receiving waters. Decisions in treatment process 

selection are discussed for four general disposal 

modes 

considered: stream disposal, estuarine disposal, 

ocean disposal, and land disposal. There is no 

discussion provided for disposal to lakes or confined 

sloughs since these water bodies are protected by 

discharge prohibitions. Separate discussions of 

treatment for wastewater reclamation and reuse and 

sludge processing and disposal are also provided. 

Management Principles and Regional Board Policies 

contained in Chapter Five should be reviewed for 

further information concerning discharge to surface 

waters.

VI.A.1. STREAM DISPOSAL

Most streams in the Central Coastal Basin are 

ephemeral in character. During summer months, 

there is little or no flow in stream channels. In several 

instances, flow during the dry season is composed of 

irrigation runoff or, in a very few cases, wastewater 

treatment plant effluent. Usually, these flows infiltrate 

into the stream bed a short distance downstream of 

discharges. In such instances, the concept of 

receiving water assimilative capacity has little 

meaning. Disposal of wastewater in ephemeral 

streams must be accomplished in a manner that 

safeguards public health and prevents nuisance 

conditions. Where possible, discharges should be 

beneficial as stream flow augmentation. When 

recharge of a useful ground water basin occurs 

through stream channel recharge, impacts on ground 

water quality must be considered.

There are a few streams in the basin which flow on a 

year-round basis and support an inland fishery. 

Disposal of wastewater to such streams requires that 

essentially all oxygen demanding substances and 

toxicity be removed.

Principal factors governing treatment process 

selection for stream disposal are federal effluent 

limits, State public health regulations, and water 

quality requirements for beneficial use protection. As 

a minimum, secondary treatment, as defined by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is required 

in all cases. Where rapid percolation occurs, 

conventional secondary treatment is currently 

adequate. EPA guidelines for best practicable 

treatment would also apply in these cases. Where 

water contact recreational use is to be protected, the 
June 8, 2011 IV-9

California Department of Health Services (DOHS) 

recommends coagulation, filtration, and disinfection 

providing a median coliform MPN of 2.2/100 ml. 

Detoxification is required where fishery protection is a 

concern. Detoxification would include effluent limits 

for identified toxicants, pursuant to Section 307 of the 

federal Water Pollution Control Act. Source control of 

specific toxicants may be necessary to comply with 

the Act.

VI.A.2. ESTUARINE DISPOSAL

Water quality objectives applying to estuaries are 

contained in Chapter Three.

Receiving waters considered estuaries are one of two 

groups: (1) shallow waters of an open bay, and (2) 

confined tidal estuaries or lagoons. Flushing action is 

usually present in a shallow open bay and natural 

dispersion and dilution is available on a limited scale. 

In confined waters, flushing action is limited or 

nonexistent except during high stream inflow or 

storms. Since these shorelines frequently are heavily 

developed and waters are extensively used, 

requirements for wastewater disposal into such areas 

are the most stringent of any for marine receiving 

waters. The "Water Quality Control Policy for 

Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California," adopted 

by the State Water Resources Control Board, 

prohibits discharge of waste to most enclosed bays 

and estuaries in the State, unless the discharge will 

enhance water quality. 

Water quality objectives in Chapter Three prevent 

discharges that could raise natural nutrient levels to 

an extent that nuisance algal blooms or other aquatic 

growths occur. Excessive eutrophication in coastal 

estuaries of California often is characterized by 

floating and stranded mats of green marine 

seaweeds Enteromorpha and Ulva. These algae 

generally grow on mud or other substrates in 

estuarine water and can produce nuisance conditions 

along shorelines. These algae have a high sulfur 

content and emit foul smelling hydrogen sulfide and 

mercaptans during decomposition. Caution should be 

given in determining control measures for estuaries, 

as many of the seasonal algal growths that occur on 

mud flats are natural and may not be significantly 

affected by waste discharges in the watershed. 

Where eutrophication problems are apparent, 

secondary treatment with denitrification, 

or phosphorus removal and disinfection should be 

provided prior to discharge.

VI.A.3. OCEAN DISPOSAL

Water quality objectives applicable to ocean waters 

are contained in Chapter Three.

Federal guidelines for secondary treatment apply to 

ocean discharges. The State Water Resources 

Control Board's Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean 

Waters of California (Ocean Plan) establishes effluent 

limits achievable by alternative processes, such as 

advanced primary treatment. The Ocean Plan 

contains water quality objectives, requirements for 

effluent quality and management of waste 

discharges, and discharge prohibitions (including 

Areas of Special Biological Significance). Effluent 

quality requirements establish limitations for grease 

and oil, solids, turbidity, pH, and toxicity. Limits are 

also established for heavy metals, chlorine residual, 

various chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, toxaphene and 

radioactivity outside the zone of initial dilution. 

For municipal discharges, the Clean Water Act allows 

waiver of secondary treatment standards on a 

case-by-case basis. Secondary treatment waivers 

are further discussed as they apply to specific 

discharges in the following section on Municipal 

Wastewater Management. If full secondary treatment 

is required but funding is inadequate, treatment levels 

should be achieved through staged construction. 

Ocean Plan objectives can be achieved as an interim 

measure. Secondary treatment must be added later 

if a waiver is not issued, or if receiving water 

monitoring indicates additional treatment is necessary 

to protect ocean waters. Industrial wastewater 

management is discussed later in this chapter.

VI.A.4. LAND DISPOSAL

To protect ground water resources, the Regional 

Board allows few waste discharges to land. Those 

that are permitted are closely regulated under 

existing laws and regulations to maintain and to 

protect ground water quality and beneficial uses.
June 8, 2011 IV-10

Disposal of waste to land in the Central Coast Region 

is regulated by California Code of Regulations, Title 

23, Chapter 15; the federal Resource Conservation 

and Recovery Act; the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act; the 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and State 

Health Department Regulations. Types of land 

disposal operations being regulated by the Central 

Coast Region include landfills, surface 

impoundments, septage and sludge disposal, mining 

operations, confined animal facilities, and some oil 

field exploration and production facilities.

California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 15

All land disposal operations are regulated by Chapter 

15. Formerly called Subchapter 15. This is the most 

significant regulation used by the Regional Board in 

regulating hazardous and nonhazardous waste 

treatment, storage, and disposal. These regulations 

include very specific siting, construction, monitoring, 

and closure requirements for all existing and new 

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 

Chapter 15 requires operators to provide assurances 

of financial responsibility for initiating and completing 

corrective action for all known or reasonably 

foreseeable releases from waste management units. 

Detailed technical criteria are provided for 

establishing water quality protection programs, and 

corrective action programs are mandated for releases 

from waste management units.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

The State implements Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act's Subtitle C (Hazardous Waste 

Regulations for Treatment, Storage, and Disposal) 

through the Department of Toxic Substances Control 

and the Regional Boards. In August 1992, the U.S. 

EPA formally delegated the Act program 

implementation authority to Department of Toxic 

Substances Control. As described above, regulation 

of hazardous waste discharges is also included in 

California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 15. 

(Chapter 15 monitoring requirements were also 

amended in August 1991 so as to be equivalent to 

Act requirements). These will be implemented 

through the adoption of Waste Discharge 

Requirements for hazardous waste sites covered by 

the Act. The discharge requirements will then 

become part of a State Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act permit issued by Department of Toxic 

Substances Control.

Federal regulations required by Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D have been 

adopted for Municipal Solid Waste landfills (40 Code 

of Federal Regulations Parts 257 & 258). The 

California Integrated Waste Management Board is 

the State lead agency for Subtitle D implementation. 

The State Board and the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board received U.S. EPA State 

program approval. Delegation of authority for the 

State Board to implement Subtitle I (Underground 

Storage Tanks) will occur after U.S. EPA approval of 

the State's program application. (The Underground 

Storage Tank Section is discussed later in this 

chapter).

Toxic Pits Cleanup Act

The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 required all 

impoundments containing liquid hazardous wastes or 

free liquids containing hazardous waste be retrofitted 

with a liner/leachate collection system, or dried out by 

July 1, 1988. Impoundments "dried out" were closed 

to remove all contaminants and/or to stabilize any 

residual contamination.

VI.A.4.a. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL

Principal factors affecting treatment process selection 

for land disposal are the nature of soils and ground 

waters in the disposal areas and, where irrigation is 

involved, the nature of crops. Wastewater 

characteristics of particular concern are total salt 

content, nitrate, boron, pathogenic organisms, and 

toxic chemicals. Where percolation alone is 

considered, the nature of underlying ground waters is 

of particular concern. Treatment processes should 

be tailored to insure that local ground waters are not 

degraded. 

Nitrate removal is required in many cases where 

percolation is to usable ground water basins. 

Percolation basins operated in alternating wet and 

dry cycles can provide significant nitrogen removal 

through nitrification/denitrification processes in the 

soil column. Finer textured soils are more effective 

than coarse soils. Nitrate removal would not 

necessarily be required, and secondary treatment 
June 8, 2011 IV-11

may be adequate where recharge is for other 

purposes such as prevention of seawater intrusion or 

where soil percolation constraints do not require

further treatment. Monitoring in the immediate vicinity 

of the disposal site is required in either case. Where 

the need for nitrate removal is not clear, removal 

could be considered at a possible future stage 

depending on monitoring results. Where well 

controlled irrigation is practiced, nitrate problems in 

the dry season will be controlled. Vegetative uptake 

will utilize soluble nitrates which would otherwise 

move into ground water under a percolation 

operation. Demineralization techniques or source 

control of total dissolved solids may be necessary in 

some inland areas where ground waters have been 

or may be degraded. Presence of excessive salinity, 

boron, or sodium could be a basis for rejection of 

crop irrigation with effluent.

State Health Department regulations, described in 

Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, 

stipulate disinfection levels required for specific 

crops. In some cases, such as pasture for milking 

animals, the California Code of Regulations requires 

oxidation with disinfection to a median number of 

coliform organisms of 23 MPN/100 ml. 

Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for 

secondary treatment do not apply to land disposal 

cases. However, municipal treatment facilities must 

provide effective solids removal and some soluble 

organics removal for percolation bed operations and 

for reduction of nuisance in wastewater effluent 

irrigation operations. Disinfection requirements are 

dictated by the disposal method. Oxidation ponds 

may be cost-effective in some remote locations and 

may be equivalent to secondary treatment.

VI.A.5. RECLAMATION AND REUSE

Water shortages in California are resulting in 

increased demand for reclamation. Reclamation and 

reuse is encouraged where feasible and beneficial. 

Where practicable, land disposal by spray irrigation 

shall be accomplished by proper reclamation 

techniques rather than by over-irrigation. This will aid 

water shortages and maximize nutrient removal.

Treatment process selection for reclamation of 

wastewater is dependent upon the intended reuse. 

Where irrigation reuse or ground water recharge is 

intended, treatment requirements will depend on 

conditions described under land disposal. Clearly, 

the nature of the crop to be irrigated, soil percolation, 

and water characteristics are important 

considerations. Title 22 of the California Code of 

Regulations provides wastewater reclamation criteria 

to regulate specific uses of reclaimed water. Where 

reuse is extended to water contact recreation, 

secondary treatment with coagulation, filtration, and 

disinfection is required. Where golf course irrigation is 

practiced, this level of treatment minus coagulation 

and filtration may be adequate. More stringent 

measures may be necessary with increased risk of 

public exposure (for example, residents adjacent to 

fairways). However, where more complete 

reclamation is envisioned, such as creation of 

recreational lakes for fishing, swimming, and water 

skiing, nutrient removal may also be required to 

minimize algae growths and to encourage fish 

propagation. Comparable treatment may also be 

needed for industrial water supplies used for cooling 

and uses where algae growth in transfer channels or 

cooling towers is of concern. Nitrogen removal and 

demineralization processes may also be necessary

for selected reclamation projects as discussed under 

land disposal.

To meet the increased demand for reclamation, 

existing regulations contained in the California Code 

of Regulations, Title 22, are being expanded. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are hereby 

incorporated as applicable reclamation requirements.

Dual water systems may be feasible in some 

instances. Reclaimed wastewater should be 

investigated as an alternative water source for toilets.

Management Principles contained in Chapter Five 

should be reviewed for further reclamation 

information. This section is located after the 

"Recommended State Water Resources Control 

Board Actions" section.
June 8, 2011 IV-12

VI.A.6. PRETREATMENT 

PROGRAMS

State and federal regulations require certain 

municipalities to develop and administer pretreatment 

programs to control the discharge of industrial wastes 

to the treatment plant. All municipal plants 

discharging to navigable waters with design flows 

greater than 5.0 mgd are required to develop and 

implement a pretreatment program. Other 

municipalities may be required to develop a 

pretreatment program if circumstances warrant such 

a program. The Environmental Protection Agency 

has established specific industrial subcategories of 

industries which discharge certain quantities or 

concentrations of pollutants to municipal systems. 

Pretreatment is required to meet effluent standards 

established for each industrial category. The 

objectives of a pretreatment program are to: (1) 

prevent introduction of pollutants into publicly-owned 

treatment works which will interfere with treatment 

operations and/or use or disposal of municipal 

sludge, (2) prevent introduction of pollutants into 

publicly owned treatment works which will pass 

through treatment works or be incompatible with 

treatment techniques, (3) increase feasibility of 

recycling and reclaiming municipal and industrial 

wastewaters and sludges, and (4) enforce applicable 

EPA Categorical Standards.

A pretreatment program must include: (1) a local 

pretreatment ordinance, (2) a use permit system, (3) 

a program of monitoring and inspection to insure 

compliance with the ordinance and use permit, and 

(4) an enforcement program sufficient to obtain 

compliance with provisions of the ordinance or use 

permit. Pretreatment programs are further discussed 

as they apply to specific dischargers in the section on 

Municipal Wastewater Management.

Municipalities required to comply with federal 

pretreatment regulations in the Central Coast Region 

are:

City of Santa Cruz,

Cities of Gilroy/Morgan Hill,

City of Watsonville,

Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant,

City of Salinas Industrial Plant,

City of San Luis Obispo,

City of Santa Maria,

City of Lompoc, and 

City of Santa Barbara

VI.A.7. SLUDGE TREATMENT

Sludge management is a difficult aspect of 

wastewater treatment. The methods used for sludge 

disposal or reuse tend to determine the sludge 

processing methods. Major goals of sludge treatment 

include pathogen destruction, vector attraction 

reduction, odor reduction, moisture removal, and 

contaminant removal. Treated sludge is commonly 

referred to as "Biosolids."

Solids removed during wastewater treatment include 

grit, primary sludge, and biological sludges. Grit is 

typically removed in a grit chamber and is usually 

inert and easily dewatered, so landfilling is usually the 

preferred management option. Primary sludges are 

generally solids that readily float or sink, whereas 

biological sludges are suspended organic materials 

and necessitate biological treatment (e.g., trickling 

filter, activated sludge, or oxidation pond) to float or 

sink. Polymers are widely used to increase settling 

and thickening efficiencies and to reduce chemical 

sludge handling problems. Primary and biological 

sludges are usually combined prior to final treatment. 

Anaerobic digestion and lagoon stabilization are 

common sludge treatment methods, but methods 

which can render sludge pathogen and odor free, 

such as lime stabilization, composting, thermophylic 

aerobic digestion, and heat treatment, are becoming 

increasingly popular. Public acceptance of beneficial 

sludge uses, such as spreading on farm land and 

reclamation of strip mines, may be improved by 

advanced sludge treatment technologies.

Sludge treatment methods are evolving as disposal is 

discouraged and beneficial reuse is encouraged. 

Ocean disposal of sludge is prohibited by the 

California Ocean Plan. Landfilling of sludge is 

generally allowed if the sludge is nonhazardous and 

meets specific moisture content requirements. 

Sludge may be disposed in Class I and Class II waste 

management units, but this practice is uncommon 
June 8, 2011 IV-13

due to its high cost. Disposal of sludge is becoming 

less attractive as landfill capacity decreases, 

recycling mandates (Assembly Bill 939) must be met, 

and society becomes aware that sludge can be a 

valuable resource as a soil amendment/fertilizer.

VI.B. MUNICIPAL 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

Municipal wastewater conveyance, treatment, and 

disposal facilities recommended for the Central 

Coastal Basin are described in the following pages. 

Recommended plans for municipal facilities are 

described in geographic sequence by hydrographic 

units. Hydrographic units are identified in Chapter 

Two, Figure 2-1. Numbers in parentheses throughout 

the chapter refer to design capacity unless otherwise 

stated. Pretreatment programs and modifications to 

secondary treatment are discussed as part of the 

recommended plan where applicable. Further 

discussion of these topics can be found under the 

subheadings "Ocean Disposal" and "Pretreatment 

Programs" at the beginning of this chapter. 

Further specific municipal management information 

can be found in the Management Principles section of 

Chapter Five. General municipal wastewater 

management information is also included in the State 

Water Resources Control Board Plans and Policies 

section, Discharge Prohibitions section, Control 

Actions section, and Regional Board Policies section.

VI.B.1. BIG BASIN HYDROLOGIC 

UNIT

The Big Basin Hydrologic Unit includes discharges 

from the City of Santa Cruz and the City of Scotts 

Valley, in addition to unsewered areas and several 

small waste dischargers. Table 4-1 displays 

summarized Big Basin Hydrologic Unit dischargers.

Table 4-1. Big Basin Hydrologic Unit Summarized 

Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

Davenport County Sanitation District

California Department of Parks and Recreation -

Big Basin State Park

California Department of Forestry -

Ben Lomond Conservation Facility

City of Santa Cruz

City of Scotts Valley

Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 7 -

Boulder Creek Golf and Country Club

Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 10 -

Rolling Woods Subdivision

San Lorenzo Valley Water District - 

Bear Creek Estates

Big Basin Woods

Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 5 -

Sand Dollar Beach and Canon del Sol

Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 20 -

Trestle Beach

Individual Septic Tank Systems

__________________________________________

The City of Santa Cruz operates a wastewater 

collection, primary treatment, and ocean disposal 

system with a capacity of 21 mgd. Sewerage service 

is provided to the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz 

County Sanitation District (SCCSD), and the City of 

Scotts Valley. The SCCSD serves East Cliff, 

Capitola, Aptos, and Seacliff areas. The 

recommended plan for the City is to upgrade the 

existing treatment plant at Neary's Lagoon to 

secondary level treatment. A new outfall was 

completed in 1988. The new outfall is 12,250 feet 

long terminating in 100 feet of water about one mile 

offshore. It replaces a 2,000 foot outfall which was a 

source of many complaints due to its proximity to the 

shore water-contact recreation area.

Mitigation measures to offset environmental impacts 

to Neary's Lagoon and an adjacent park must be 

resolved before the plant can proceed. The City has 

implemented a pretreatment program affecting the 

City of Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz County Sanitation 

District.

Wastewaters from sewered areas of the City of 

Scotts Valley are transported to Scotts Valley's 

secondary treatment plant. Effluent is transported 

through a land outfall to the City of Santa Cruz 

marine outfall for disposal to the Pacific Ocean. A 

recommended plan for Scotts Valley includes: (1) 

increasing wastewater treatment capacity from 0.65 
June 8, 2011 IV-14

mgd to 0.95 mgd, (2) providing reclaimed water to 

Pasatiempo Golf Course and other green belt areas 

for irrigation purposes, and (3) transporting excess 

wastewater through the Scotts Valley land outfall to 

the City of Santa Cruz ocean outfall. An alternative 

plan is to transport raw wastewater through the 

Scotts Valley land outfall to the Santa Cruz 

wastewater treatment plant for treatment and 

disposal through the ocean outfall. Local water 

agencies (Scotts Valley Water District and San 

Lorenzo Valley Water District) may benefit from 

reclamation efforts and should be involved in reuse 

planning.

Davenport County Sanitation District (DCSD) was 

created in 1979 to provide sewer and water services 

to the Davenport-Newtown area located on the coast 

north of Santa Cruz. Davenport-Newtown area has 

interceptors and an aerated wastewater lagoon on 

property owned by Lone Star Industries. Disposal is 

through evaporation/ percolation and industrial reuse. 

DCSD is responsible for wastewater collection, 

treatment, and disposal.

The State Department of Parks and Recreation is 

responsible for Big Basin State Park facilities (.04 

mgd). Discharge provides stream flow augmentation. 

The wastewater treatment plant includes secondary 

treatment with sand filtration and coagulation. This 

stream discharge qualifies as an acceptable 

wastewater reclamation project. The discharge is 

upstream from a popular swimming hole, so this plan 

emphasizes the need to enhance water quality and 

protect beneficial uses in Waddell Creek. The 

Department of Parks and Recreation must correct 

wastewater system deficiencies in order to protect 

public health and the beneficial uses of Waddell 

Creek and tributaries.

The recommended plan for the Ben Lomond 

Conservation Facility is to retain the existing septic 

tank, evaporation/percolation ponds, and spray field. 

Existing facilities are adequate so long as operation 

and maintenance are effective.

Wastewater management in San Lorenzo Valley 

(SLV) is provided by three community treatment and 

disposal facilities (Bear Creek Estates, Big Basin 

Woods, and Boulder Creek Golf and Country Club). 

Remaining areas are served by individually owned 

septic tank and soil absorption systems. Bear Creek 

Estates uses septic tank treatment with disposal to 

a soil absorption system. This facility is the 

responsibility of San Lorenzo Valley Water District 

and Bear Creek Estates.

The recommended plan for Big Basin Woods 

Subdivision is to retain the existing extended aeration 

treatment facility with leachfield disposal, presently 

operating at approximately ten percent of total 

capacity (.35 mgd). Flow from County Service Area 

No. 7 has been diverted to Big Basin Woods' 

leachfield during equipment repair periods. 

Leachfield capacity is adequate to serve both Big 

Basin Woods and CSA No. 7. Existing facilities are 

adequate so long as operation and maintenance are 

effective. This plan will be implemented by Big Basin 

Sanitation Company, Big Basin Woods Subdivision, 

and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. 

The recommended plan for Boulder Creek Golf and 

Country Club is to retain the existing activated sludge 

treatment facility with leachfield disposal and add 

filtration for golf course irrigation. Existing facilities 

are adequate so long as operation and maintenance 

are effective. Operation and maintenance of the 

system is the responsibility of the Santa Cruz County 

Department of Public Works. This plan will be 

implemented by Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 

7 through Santa Cruz County Department of Public 

Works and San Lorenzo Valley Water District.

Rolling Woods Subdivision, Santa Cruz County 

Service Area No. 10, provides treatment with a 

redwood bark biofilter and disposes treated effluent 

through percolation pits. This facility should be 

replaced with an interceptor that would convey 

wastes to the City of Santa Cruz for treatment and 

disposal.

Individually owned septic tank leachfield systems in 

the San Lorenzo Valley have been inspected and 

monitored from 1986 through 1994. Problem areas 

have been identified and the suitability of these 

problem areas for the continued use of septic 

systems has been determined as documented in the 

County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Services 

reports (1) Preliminary Report, An Evaluation of 

Wastewater Disposal and Water Quality in the San 

Lorenzo Watershed, September, 1989; (2) Final 

Project Report, Boulder Creek Wastewater Feasibility 

Study, October, 1991; and (3) Final Project Report, 

San Lorenzo Valley Community Wastewater 

Feasibility Studies, March, 1994. Alternatives have 

been evaluated and solutions proposed to reduce 

septic system problems in certain areas of the valley. 

Solutions are contained in the “Wastewater 

Management Plan for the San Lorenzo River 

Watershed, County of Santa Cruz, Health Services 

Agency, Environmental Health Service”, February 

1995 and “San Lorenzo Nitrate Management Plan, 
June 8, 2011 IV-15

Phase II Final Report”, February 1995, County of 

Santa Cruz, Health Services Agency, Environmental 

Health Service (Wastewater Management Plan). The 

Wastewater Management Plan documented 

standards and conditions that shall be met for the 

protection and enhancement of beneficial uses.

Dischargers in the Aptos-Soquel area include 

Santa Cruz County Service Area No. 5 (Sand Dollar 

Beach and Canon del Sol), SCCSA No. 20 

(Trestle Beach), and Monterey Bay Academy. Flows 

from Aptos and East Cliff are conveyed through 

interceptors and pumping stations for treatment at the 

City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Plant.

The recommended plan for SCCSA No. 5 is to retain 

the existing extended aeration package treatment 

plant and disposal to seepage pits. Wastewater 

treatment and disposal at Canon del Sol will be by 

the same methods as Sand Dollar Beach. Facilities 

will be adequate so long as operation and 

maintenance are effective. This plan will be 

implemented by SCCSA No. 5 through Santa Cruz 

County Department of Public Works.

Wastewater treatment at Trestle Beach (SCCSA 

No. 20) will be provided by an extended aeration 

package treatment plant with disposal to seepage 

pits. This plan will be implemented by SCCSA No. 20 

through the Santa Cruz County Department of Public 

Works. It is recommended that CSA No. 5 and No. 

20 be connected to regional collection systems when 

service is extended to adjacent areas.

The recommended plan for the Monterey Bay 

Academy is to retain the existing settling pond with 

disposal to a series of evaporation-percolation ponds.

VI.B.2. PAJARO RIVER 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Summarized municipal dischargers in the Pajaro 

River Hydrologic Unit include the City of Gilroy/

Morgan Hill, City of Hollister, City of San Juan 

Bautista, and the City of Watsonville. Table 4-2 

displays dischargers summarized for the Pajaro River 

Hydrologic Unit.

Table 4-2. Pajaro River Hydrologic Unit 

Summarized Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

Unsewered San Martin

City of Gilroy/Morgan Hill

San Benito County Facilities

Sunnyslope County Water District

Tres Pinos County Water District

City of Hollister

City of San Juan Bautista

City of Watsonville

__________________________________________

The Gilroy area includes the unsewered San Martin

area and the City of Gilroy's advanced primary 

treatment and land disposal facilities serving the 

Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The Cities are 

currently attempting to develop facilities to resolve 

disposal capacity deficiencies. Primary treatment 

provided via two oxidation ponds with surface 

aeration. Effluent disposal is to a series of 

evaporation/percolation ponds. Wastewater 

reclamation facilities were constructed in 1977 to 

alleviate water shortages during drought conditions. 

When reclamation facilities are in use (seasonally), 

primary effluent is provided further treatment in an 

aeration pond. Effluent is then screened, chlorinated, 

and pumped through nine miles of distribution pipe to 

various users (for irrigation purposes). The 

reclamation system's economics have not been 

favorable. Industrial flows of 6.3 mgd are treated and 

disposed of in a separate series of sedimentation, 

oxidation, and percolation ponds.

The recommended plan for the Gilroy-Morgan Hill 

wastewater treatment facilities is to continue 

geohydrological assessments to determine impacts of 

continued effluent disposal by percolation at the 

Gilroy site. If beneficial uses of surface and ground 

waters are not adequately protected, other treatment 

and/or disposal methods must be used. Disposal will 

continue to be by percolation, evaporation, and 

reclamation. Before a discharge to surface waters is 

considered, the City will be required to evaluate 

feasible land disposal options. If current percolation 

practices are not causing receiving water problems, 

feasibility of existing disposal area expansion should 

be considered. The Cities are also evaluating stream 

disposal. Currently, the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan 

Hill are responsible for collection, treatment, and 

disposal of wastewater. They are also responsible 

for operating the wastewater reclamation facilities. 

Santa Clara Valley Water District is responsible for 
June 8, 2011 IV-16

administrative tasks for the reclamation system. In 

addition, the Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill have 

implemented a pretreatment program since 1983.

Individual on-site systems are used for sewage 

disposal in the San Martin area. Twenty percent of 

the area's wells exceed the nitrate drinking water 

objective. This is a significant problem since this 

area serves as the sole recharge area for the Santa 

Clara Valley. Methods of providing a water supply 

that is free of excessive nitrate concentration should 

be investigated and implemented. Nitrate loadings 

from various sources should be calculated for the 

area to determine the contribution from various 

sources. The need for on-site system restrictions 

should be determined.

Small discharges (less than 0.10 mgd) in the Hollister 

area include flows from San Benito County Facilities, 

Sunnyslope County Water District, and Tres Pinos 

County Water District. City of Hollister wastewater is 

treated at the City of Hollister Wastewater Treatment 

Facilities (1.2 mgd). San Juan Bautista wastewater is 

treated at the City of San Juan Bautista Wastewater 

Treatment Facilities (0.15 mgd).

The recommended plan for Tres Pinos is to retain the 

existing evaporation/percolation ponds. The 

recommended plan for San Benito County Hospital 

Facilities and Sunnyslope County Water District is to 

study the feasibility of constructing interceptors to the 

Hollister facilities or consolidating into a single 

subregional system. Existing facilities consisting of 

aerated pond treatment followed by land disposal to 

evaporation/percolation ponds may be maintained if 

project level studies determine this to be the more 

feasible method of wastewater treatment and 

disposal. Sunnyslope County Water District owns 

and operates a wastewater treatment and disposal 

system serving approximately 300 homes in 

Ridgemark Estates subdivision located approximately 

2-1/2 miles south-east of Hollister. Wastewater is 

treated in two aerated ponds and disposed of in 

evaporation/percolation ponds. Effluent may be used 

in the future to irrigate a golf course.

The recommended plan for the City of Hollister is to 

retain the existing advanced primary treatment 

facilities and percolation ponds which started 

operating in 1979. The Hollister industrial system is 

to be maintained separately to receive seasonal 

flows from the spinach and tomato processing 

operations. The recommended plan for the City of 

San Juan Bautista is development of a land disposal 

system. The City currently discharges secondary 

effluent to a drainage ditch tributary to Pajaro River.

Land disposal of wastewaters in the Hollister region 

must be monitored carefully to assure ground water 

quality is protected. Source control of salt must be 

stressed to reduce effluent salinity to levels 

acceptable for disposal to local ground waters.

Wastewaters in the Watsonville area are transported 

to regional treatment facilities in the City of 

Watsonville with a design capacity of 13.4 mgd. 

Collection, primary treatment, and disposal to 

Monterey Bay are provided for the City of 

Watsonville, and the local sewering entities of 

Freedom County Sanitation District, Pajaro County 

Sanitation District, and Salsipuedes Sanitary District. 

The City submitted an application to EPA for waiver 

of secondary treatment requirements and the 

Regional Board has approved a waiver permit. 

Project level studies determined ocean disposal to be 

the most feasible method of waste disposal. Ocean 

outfall improvements and a phased approach to 

secondary treatment are included in Watsonville's 

Clean Water Grant Project. If a waiver from 

secondary treatment is granted, the project will 

provide advanced primary treatment. Local sewering 

entities retain ownership and direct responsibility for 

wastewater collection and transport systems up to the 

point of discharge to interceptors owned and 

operated by Watsonville. The City is implementing a 

pretreatment program and the Regional Board has 

approved a waiver permit.

VI.B.3. CARMEL RIVER 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Summarized municipal dischargers in the Carmel 

River Hydrologic Unit include Carmel Sanitary 

District. Table 4-3 displays dischargers summarized 

for the Carmel River Hydrologic Unit.
June 8, 2011 IV-17

Table 4-3. Carmel River Hydrologic Unit 

Summarized Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

Carmel Sanitary District

Carmel Valley Sanitation District

Village Green

White Oaks

Carmel Valley Ranch

Carmel Highlands Inn

Carmel Sanitary Association

__________________________________________

The Carmel Sanitary District operates a secondary 

wastewater treatment plant with ocean disposal 

serving Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Monte Forest, and a 

few adjacent areas. The outfall system terminates 

within a portion of Carmel Bay that is designated an 

Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The 

District is developing a reclamation project for 

irrigation of Monterey Peninsula Golf Courses. A 

high concentration of golf courses in a water short 

area makes reclamation particularly desirable and 

attractive.

Carmel Valley Sanitation District operates three 

facilities in Carmel Valley. These include community 

septic tank/subsurface disposal systems at Village 

Green and White Oaks and a tertiary type treatment 

plant with golf course reclamation at Carmel Valley 

Ranch. No changes are recommended unless public 

health or water quality problems develop. Should the 

need arise for specific septic system maintenance in 

Carmel Valley, local agencies should be considered 

for management responsibilities.

Comprehensive studies to determine the feasibility of 

establishing separate treatment plants have been 

completed for the Carmel Valley area. These studies 

conclude that on-site septic systems should remain 

operational until further ground water monitoring data 

shows sewers are necessary. Wastewater treatment 

and reuse on the Carmel Valley Ranch Golf Course 

provides an optimal way of managing waste 

generated in the area.

Carmel Highlands wastewaters should continue to be 

treated in on-site wastewater systems except at the 

Highlands Inn and the Carmel Highlands Sanitary 

Association. Both of these systems will continue to 

discharge treated secondary quality effluent to the 

Pacific Ocean.

VI.B.4. SANTA LUCIA 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

The U.S. Navy's Point Sur wastewater facilities and

the State Department of Parks and Recreation 

Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park facilities are the only 

significant facilities in this hydrologic unit. Ocean 

discharge from the U. S. Navy is being discontinued 

and is being replaced with a subsurface land disposal 

system. The subsurface land disposal system at 

Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park also seems adequate. If 

expansion to this facility is considered or if ground or 

surface water degradation from this discharge is 

detected, other means of disposal, such as 

reclamation, are recommended.

VI.B.5. SALINAS RIVER 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

The extensive Salinas River Hydrologic Unit includes 

the Monterey Peninsula and southern coastal area of 

Monterey Bay, the City of Salinas, agricultural and 

small urban centers of the Salinas Valley, and 

recreational developments in the upper watersheds. 

Major dischargers in the Salinas River Hydrologic 

Unit include the Monterey Regional Water Pollution 

Agency (MRWPCA). Table 4-4 displays dischargers 

summarized below for the Salinas River Hydrologic 

Unit.

Table 4-4. Salinas River Hydrologic Unit 

Summarized Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

(MRWPCA)

U.S. Army Fort Hunter Liggett

California Army National Guard - Camp Roberts

King City

City of Paso Robles

City of Atascadero

San Luis Obispo County Service Area No. 7A Oak 

Shores

San Luis Obispo County Service Area No. 19 

Heritage Ranch Development

__________________________________________

The recommended plan for the Monterey 

Peninsula-Salinas area calls for consolidation of 
June 8, 2011 IV-18

Monterey Peninsula, Salinas, Castroville, and other 

Monterey Bay municipal wastewater flows into a 

regional wastewater treatment plant and outfall. 

Discharge is to central Monterey Bay outside the 

prohibition zone described in Chapter 5 "Discharge 

Prohibitions" under "Waters Subject to Tidal Action." 

Upon completion of the regional plant, wastewater 

treatment plants in Monterey, Salinas (2), Castroville, 

and Fort Ord will be taken out of service. The 

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency 

(MRWPCA) was established to manage and 

implement regional consolidation.

It is recommended MRWPCA implement wastewater 

reclamation. MRWPCA plans to provide reclaimed 

water to the Castroville Irrigation Project which 

involves irrigating food crops in the Castroville area 

with water reclaimed at the regional plant blended 

with water diverted from the Salinas River.

New major residential developments proposed within 

the service area of the Regional Project should 

connect to the regional system unless studies can 

show that water quality and public health concerns 

can be properly mitigated. Sewerage feasibility 

studies and aerial ground water studies should 

continue in this sub-basin to assure that adequate 

sewage treatment and disposal capabilities are 

maintained for both existing and proposed 

development.

Recommended plans for Salinas Valley communities, 

the U. S. Army's Fort Hunter Liggett, the California 

Army National Guard's Camp Roberts, and 

recreational areas in the upper watershed involve 

separate wastewater treatment and disposal facilities.

Dischargers along the Salinas River should remain as 

separate treatment facilities with land disposal to 

evaporation/percolation systems and land application 

(irrigation) systems where possible. Disposal should 

be managed to provide maximum nitrogen reduction 

(e.g., through crop irrigation or wet and dry cycle 

percolation). Facility expansions shall include means 

for nitrogen reduction. Shallow ground water 

monitoring at these facilities will determine if 

additional improvements are necessary. King City

should consider expanding its service area to include 

Pine Canyon if development continues in that area. 

The City of Paso Robles owns and operates a 

secondary treatment plant (4.9 mgd) utilizing trickling 

filtration followed by oxidation ponds. Disposal is by 

evaporation and percolation from the oxidation ponds 

and by discharging from the last pond to the Salinas 

River channel. Use of reclaimed water should be 

investigated and implemented, if feasible. A 

reduction of inorganic salt in the effluent would 

increase its desirability to potential users. A report, 

"Water Quality in the Paso Robles Area," published 

by the California Department of Water Resources in 

1981 made water quality control recommendations, 

including a recommendation for more stringent 

control of total dissolved solids and sodium in the 

City's wastewater treatment plant discharge. A 

Regional Board Salt Balance Study is planned to 

further define the need and methods of salt reduction.

The City of Paso Robles also owns and operates the 

wastewater facility serving the California Youth 

Authority and Paso Robles Airport Wastewater 

treatment plant (0.10 mgd). Disposal is to a series of 

oxidation-percolation ponds located adjacent to 

Huerhuero Creek. Wastewater reclamation uses 

should be investigated. An effluent pump exists at 

the plant in case wastewater reclamation potential 

develops. The City is planning an interceptor sewer 

to eliminate this facility and provide all treatment and 

disposal at its main City facility.

The City of Atascadero (1.67 mgd) owns and 

operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and 

disposal system serving part of the City. Pond 

treatment is provided followed by land disposal to 

percolation ponds and by irrigation of a golf course. 

San Luis Obispo County Health Department has 

documented public health problems and water quality 

problems arising from failing on-site sewage disposal 

systems in areas within the City. The City was 

sewered in the most significant problem areas, but 

additional sewering is needed.

Dischargers in the Nacimiento Reservoir area include 

San Luis Obispo County Service Area No. 7A, Oak 

Shores Development (0.1 mgd); and, San Luis 

Obispo County Service Area No. 19, Heritage Ranch 

Development (0.40 mgd). Wastewater facilities for 

the Oak Shores Development consist of two aerated 

treatment ponds and spray disposal. Part of the 

collection system is located below the spillway 

elevation of Nacimiento Reservoir. This has been a 
June 8, 2011 IV-19

source of excessive infiltration in the past and the 

problem has been corrected. This area should be 

watched closely as reservoir level rises and 

wastewater flows increase to insure infiltration and/or 

exfiltration do not reoccur. Major expansion of 

wastewater facilities is expected in the future. As the 

development grows, new disposal facilities should be 

relocated well away from Nacimiento Lake.

Wastewater at Heritage Ranch is treated in aerated 

lagoons at the development. Discharge is to a 

holding pond, filtered, and then discharged to a 

drainageway located outside the Nacimiento 

Reservoir watershed.

Camp Roberts is a U. S. Army installation that is 

leased by the California National Guard as a major 

training site. Wastewater flows that vary from 3000 

gpd in winter to nearly 1.0 mgd in summer are treated 

to secondary levels prior to disposal in a series of 

percolation/evaporation ponds located near the 

Salinas River. The facility was upgraded in 1980 and 

there are no additional recommendations.

Dischargers in the San Antonio Reservoir watershed 

include Monterey County's Department of Parks and 

Recreation and the U.S. Army's Fort Hunter Liggett. 

There are no recommended changes to facilities 

operated by the Monterey County Department of 

Parks and Recreation. The U.S. Army, Fort Hunter 

Liggett operates wastewater treatment facilities 

located adjacent to the San Antonio River. The 

recommended plan is to maintain the existing 

facilities with improvement of the spray disposal area.

VI.B.6. ESTERO BAY 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Municipal wastewater management plans for the 

Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit are described for each of 

these four areas: North Coast, Morro Bay, San Luis 

Obispo Creek, and South County Regions. Table 4-5 

displays dischargers summarized below.

Table 4-5. Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit 

Summarized Dischargers

__________________________________________

Cambria Community Services District

San Simeon Acres Community Services District

City of Morro Bay and Cayucos Sanitary District

California Men's Colony

Los Osos septic tank/leachfield systems

City of San Luis Obispo

Avila Beach County Water District

San Luis Obispo County Service Area No. 18-

Country Club Estates

City of Pismo Beach

South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District

Lopez Recreation Area Wastewater Treatment 

Plant

__________________________________________

Dischargers in the North San Luis Obispo Coast 

include Cambria Community Services District (1.0 

mgd) and San Simeon Acres Community Services 

District (0.2 mgd).

Secondary treatment facilities at Cambria have a 

design capacity of 1.0 mgd and include a land outfall 

and spray irrigation system for effluent disposal, and 

an effluent holding reservoir. Excess effluent that 

cannot be spray-irrigated is pumped to the reservoir 

for later land disposal or discharged during wet 

weather through a sand filter bed to Van Gordon 

Creek. The District is evaluating land disposal 

improvements. Implementation of this plan is the 

responsibility of Cambria Community Services 

District.

San Simeon Acres Community Services District owns 

and operates a secondary treatment (activated 

sludge) plant with design capacity of 0.2 mgd. 

Wastewater visitor complex generated at Hearst 

Castle and within the community is treated and 

discharged to the Pacific Ocean through an ocean 

outfall. The recommended plan is to retain the 

treatment plant.

Dischargers in the Morro Bay area include the City of 

Morro Bay and Cayucos Sanitary District (2.1 mgd), 

California Men's Colony (CMC) (1.2 mgd), and Los 

Osos- Baywood septic tank leachfield systems.

The City of Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary 

District jointly own treatment facilities with ocean 

outfall disposal. Wastewater is being treated by a 

newly constructed plant and discharged through a 

newly constructed ocean outfall. In order to 
June 8, 2011 IV-20

maximize plant capacity and meet Ocean Plan 

requirements, part of the effluent receives primary 

treatment only and part receives secondary 

treatment. Primary and secondary quality effluents 

are blended before disposal to the Pacific Ocean in 

compliance with a secondary treatment waiver.

Recently renovated wastewater treatment facilities at 

California Men's Colony also serve the California 

National Guard Camp, Cuesta College, the County 

Educational Center, and the County Operational 

Facility. Secondary treatment with 

coagulation/filtration, and subsequent disposal to 

Chorro Creek (stream flow augmentation) are 

provided. Effluent is also used to irrigate fodder 

crops on nearby lands owned by California State 

Polytechnic University.

Development on small lots in Los Osos-Baywood has 

resulted in one of the most densely populated areas 

without public sewers on the central coast. Septic 

tank effluent is discharged in predominantly sandy 

soil over a ground water basin which is the sole 

source of water for the area. Some shallow wells 

have approached and exceeded the public health 

maximum nitrate concentration limit. The County of 

San Luis Obispo conducted a Clean Water Grant 

funded study of this situation. Study findings resulted 

in a Basin Plan Prohibition of discharges effective 

November 1, 1988. The County has not implemented 

the recommended project of sewering the area. (A 

new septic system discharge prohibition now exists 

for the area).

Dischargers in the San Luis Obispo Creek area 

include the City of San Luis Obispo (5.1 mgd), Avila 

Beach County Water District (0.1 mgd), and San Luis 

Obispo County Service Area (CSA) No. 18, Country

Club Estates (0.12 mgd).

The City of San Luis Obispo wastewater treatment 

facilities serve as a regional plant for the City and 

certain proximal unincorporated county areas. 

Trickling filters provide secondary treatment before 

disposal to San Luis Obispo Creek. Infiltration and 

inflow in the wastewater collection system causes 

excessive wet weather flows and intermittent 

discharges to San Luis Obispo Creek of partially 

treated wastewater. The recommended plan for San 

Luis Obispo is improving the collection and treatment 

facilities capacity to eliminate these discharges. The 

City's Wastewater Management Plan should be 

implemented to provide treatment necessary to 

comply with stringent permit requirements.

The small community of Avila Beach is served by a 

small advanced primary trickling filter wastewater 

treatment facility owned and operated by the Avila 

Beach County Water District. Design capacity of the 

plant was originally 0.18 mgd, but was downgraded in 

1986 to 0.1 mgd as the NPDES permit was revised to 

include secondary treatment standards for tickling 

filters. Current average flow is only 0.07 mgd. 

Wastewater disposal is through an ocean outfall to 

the Pacific Ocean. Additional treatment and/or outfall 

modification will be necessary as flow increases. 

Oceanographic studies would be required to 

determine appropriate modifications (e.g., lengthen 

the outfall and add a multiport diffuser).

Country Club Estates (CSA No. 18) is a small 

subdivision in South San Luis Obispo County that 

historically relied on septic tank systems for 

wastewater treatment and disposal. A septic tank 

system performance survey completed in January, 

1981, identified significant public health hazards from 

numerous failing septic tank systems in the 

subdivision. The septic systems were replaced in 

1988 by a small secondary treatment plant (0.12 

mgd) with effluent disposal via golf course irrigation at 

the San Luis Obispo Golf and Country Club.

Dischargers in the South San Luis Obispo County 

Region include the City of Pismo Beach (1.2 mgd), 

South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (3.0 

mgd) (serving the City of Arroyo Grande, City of 

Grover City, and Ocean Community Services 

District), and Lopez Recreation Area wastewater 

treatment plant (0.10 mgd). These dischargers 

provide secondary treatment of wastewater through 

three separate facilities. Pismo Beach has a land 

outfall to the South San Luis Obispo County 

Sanitation District ocean outfall. Plant reliability 

improvements were made in 1987. Future treatment 

plant enlargements should provide duplicate process 

units for improved operation and maintenance. A 

long range solids management plan must be 

developed and implemented.

South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District

disposes of secondary effluent through an ocean 

outfall to the Pacific Ocean. The District has 

enlarged its facilities to 3.0 mgd and changed from 

activated sludge to fixed film reactor. A long range 
June 8, 2011 IV-21

solids management plan is also needed for this plant.

The Lopez Recreation Area treatment facilities serve 

County facilities adjacent to Lopez Lake. Lopez Lake 

serves as a municipal water supply for downstream 

coastal communities. It is recommended land 

disposal of wastes be continued. Ground water 

quality monitoring should be used to provide warning 

of any potential ground water problems downstream 

of the disposal area. Implementation of this plan is 

the responsibility of the County of San Luis Obispo.

VI.B.7. CARRIZO PLAIN 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

There are no municipal sewerage systems in the 

Carrizo Plain Hydrologic Unit; recommended 

practices for individual disposal systems will pertain 

to this area.

VI.B.8. SANTA MARIA RIVER 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

The municipal wastewater management plans for the 

Santa Maria Valley and the Cuyama Valley are 

described separately for the City of Guadalupe, the 

City of Santa Maria, the Laguna County Sanitation 

District, Nipomo, and the New Cuyama wastewater 

treatment plant.

It is recommended that separate wastewater 

treatment and disposal/reclamation facilities be 

maintained by the City of Guadalupe (0.5 mgd), the 

City of Santa Maria (7.8 mgd), and the Laguna 

County Sanitation District (3.2 mgd). Discharge will 

be to land in each case.

The City of Guadalupe provides primary treatment 

followed by mechanically aerated lagoons. An 

unincorporated neighborhood known as the Gularte 

Tract is located adjacent to Guadalupe. A lift station 

and interceptor have been constructed to transport 

Gularte's wastewater to the City's collection system. 

The recommended plan for Guadalupe is to complete 

additional storage ponds and disposal facilities to 

insure containment of wastewaters during wet 

weather and accommodate planned growth and to 

continue effluent discharge to land. Use of reclaimed 

water to irrigate nearby pasture lands is encouraged 

and should be maximized. Implementation of this 

plan is the responsibility of the City of Guadalupe. 

The County of Santa Barbara will be responsible for 

wastewater collection and transport systems for 

Gularte Tract up to the point of discharge to 

interceptors owned and operated by Guadalupe.

The City of Santa Maria provides wastewater 

collection, treatment, and disposal services to the 

City of Santa Maria, Santa Maria Airport District, and 

part of Laguna County Sanitation District. Biological 

secondary treatment is provided with disposal to 

percolation ponds and irrigation lands. The 

recommended plan for Santa Maria is to retain the 

existing treatment and disposal facilities. Since the 

Santa Maria ground water basin is in a state of 

adverse dissolved solids balance, it is imperative that 

quantities of total dissolved solids, sodium, chloride, 

nitrogen, and nitrogen compounds be kept to a 

minimum by implementing a strict source control 

ordinance. Additional measures -- importing better 

quality water, drilling new wells, partial desalting, etc. 

- may be required in the future to provide a suitable 

water supply for the area. Laguna County Sanitation 

District retains ownership and direct responsibility for 

wastewater collection and transport systems up to the 

point of discharge into interceptors owned and 

operated by the City of Santa Maria.

A secondary wastewater treatment plant owned and 

operated by Laguna County Sanitation District treats 

most of the wastewater generated within the District. 

Wastewater is discharged to approximately 2,250 

acres of private lands located adjacent to the facility. 

The landowners and the County have a 30-year 

agreement for irrigation of fodder, fiber, and seed 

crops. The recommended plan for Laguna is to 

improve plant performance and increase capacity 

through a staged construction plan. Enough land is 

available to allow expansion and continue 

reclamation. Recommended improvements include 

increasing capacity and reliability of the Orcutt Lift 

Station, increasing sludge drying bed area, and 

expanding effluent, pumping, storage, and 

conveyance facilities. Funding of future 
June 8, 2011 IV-22

improvements and plant expansions would be 

through connection and user charges. Laguna 

County Sanitation District is responsible for 

implementation of the recommended plan. Impact of 

salts must be minimized by implementing a strict 

source control ordinance and discharging to areas 

outside the main ground water recharge area.

Failing individual on-site sewage disposal systems in 

the community of Nipomo resulted in a treatment 

facility being completed in 1987. Treatment is by 

aerated lagoons and disposal is by percolation beds. 

Sewer service is provided to downtown Nipomo and 

County operated systems of Nipomo Palms, Black 

Lake Estates, and Galaxy Subdivisions. The 

recommended plan is to extend the sewer system to 

small lot areas as growth allows.

Existing facilities at the New Cuyama Wastewater 

Treatment Plant provide primary treatment of 

wastewater, with some aeration. Effluent is 

chlorinated before discharge to Salisbury Creek. The 

recommended plan for New Cuyama is to study 

existing facilities, determine future needs of the 

community, and, since water is in short supply, 

explore wastewater reclamation alternatives. 

Cuyama Community Services District is the 

responsible party for wastewater and water supply 

facilities in New Cuyama. It is recommended that 

exploratory wells be drilled to find a higher quality 

water supply. If a lower salt content water is not 

available, the existing water supply should be partially 

demineralized.

VI.B.9. SAN ANTONIO CREEK 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Los Alamos Community Services District owns and 

operates a wastewater treatment and disposal facility 

to serve the Los Alamos community. Wastewater 

(0.1 mgd) is treated in mechanically aerated ponds 

and discharged to disposal ponds and a spray 

reclamation area.

VI.B.10. SANTA YNEZ RIVER 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Municipal wastewater management plans for the 

Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Unit are described 

below. Table 4-6 displays dischargers discussed 

below.

Table 4-6. Santa Ynez River Hydrologic Unit 

Summarized Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

City of Lompoc

Mission Hills Community Services District

Vandenberg Air Force Base

U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons

Buellton Community Services District

City of Solvang

Cachuma County Sanitation District

__________________________________________

Parts of Lompoc Valley ground water basin are in a 

state of adverse salt balance because of municipal 

and agricultural discharges. It is imperative that 

impacts of point source waste discharges to land be 

reduced by continuing to implement strict salt 

limitations, source control programs, and other salt 

management practices.

The City of Lompoc operates a secondary treatment 

facility (5.0 mgd) and discharges treated effluent to 

Santa Ynez River. The City also provides service to 

Vandenberg Village Community Services District and 

sewered areas of Vandenberg Air Force Base. The 

recommended plan for Lompoc is to control mineral 

concentrations in the effluent by enforcing strict limits 

on discharges to the sewer system and to continue to 

implement a pretreatment program. Implementation 

of this plan is the responsibility of the City of Lompoc. 

Vandenberg Air Force Base and Vandenberg Village 

Community Services District retain ownership and 

direct responsibility for wastewater collection and 

transport systems up to the point of discharge into the 

wastewater treatment plant and/ or interceptors 

owned and operated by the City of Lompoc.

In 1980, the Mission Hills Community Services 

District (0.4 mgd) was formed, assuming ownership 

and responsibility for water supply and sewage 

disposal in Mission Hills. The District expanded and 
June 8, 2011 IV-23

upgraded its La Purisima Plant and eliminated the 

Rucker Road Plant. Wastewater is treated in 

mechanically aerated ponds and discharged to a 

series of evaporation/percolation ponds and 

reclamation areas. Separate water reclamation 

requirements were adopted for Mission Belle Dairy as 

a primary user of reclaimed water for pasture and 

fodder crop irrigation.

There are isolated areas of Vandenberg Air Force 

Base that are not served by the Base's collection 

system. Separate treatment and disposal systems 

exist to serve these areas. Due to the isolation of 

these systems, it is recommended that they be 

retained. Efficient operation and maintenance of 

these systems will protect public health and water 

quality.

The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Prisons, owns and operates existing facilities at the 

U.S. Penitentiary (0.6 mgd) which provide secondary 

treatment of wastewater. Treated wastewater is 

reclaimed for irrigation of forage crop land.

It is recommended that facilities be maintained 

separately at Buellton Community Services District

(0.65 mgd), City of Solvang (1.0 mgd), and Cachuma 

County Sanitation District (0.22 mgd). Secondary 

treatment prior to land disposal coupled with a strict 

source control program will be necessary to protect 

local ground waters in these three areas.

The City of Solvang operates a secondary 

wastewater treatment facility to serve the City and 

Santa Ynez Community Services District with effluent 

disposal to evaporation/percolation ponds. Since the 

disposal ponds are located in a flood-prone area, it is 

imperative that sufficient disinfection capacity be 

available to disinfect effluent during wet weather. 

Expansion of capacity should be considered for 

ongoing growth in areas adjacent to present City and 

District boundaries. Implementation of this plan is the 

responsibility of both the City of Solvang and Santa 

Ynez Community Services District. Need for, and 

feasibility of providing, sewerage facilities for the Los 

Olivos-Ballard areas should be investigated by the 

County of Santa Barbara. Treatment and disposal 

service for this area be contracted with the City of 

Solvang.

The recommended plan for Cachuma County 

Sanitation District is to continue to treat and dispose 

of wastewater in percolation ponds and spray fields 

outside the Cachuma Reservoir watershed. Since 

ground waters down gradient from the spray field are 

used for domestic water supply, sampling of the 

nearest down gradient well is recommended to insure 

that water supply quality is not adversely affected by 

the discharge.

VI.B.11. SOUTH COAST 

HYDROLOGIC UNIT

Summarized municipal wastewater treatment and 

disposal agencies in the South Coast Hydrologic Unit 

are described separately for the Goleta Sanitary 

District (9.7 mgd), City of Santa Barbara (11.0 mgd), 

Montecito Sanitary District (1.5 mgd), Summerland 

Sanitary District (0.20 mgd), and, Carpinteria Sanitary 

District (2.0 mgd) wastewater treatment plants.

Goleta Sanitary District operates a wastewater 

collection system within the District and a treatment 

and ocean disposal system to provide service to 

Goleta Sanitary District, Isla Vista Sanitary District, 

University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa 

Barbara Municipal Airport, and facilities of 

Santa Barbara County. EPA granted the District a 

waiver from secondary treatment requirements. The 

waiver permit limits flow to 7.9 mgd provided mass 

emission rates do not exceed limits based on a flow 

of 7.3 mgd. In order to meet EPA's conditions and 

Ocean Plan criteria, part of the effluent receive 

primary treatment only and part receives secondary 

treatment. Primary and secondary effluent are 

blended before disposal to the Pacific Ocean. The 

District implements a pretreatment program. Isla 

Vista Sanitary District, University of California at 

Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, and 

Santa Barbara County retain ownership and direct 

responsibility for wastewater collection and transport 

systems up to the point of discharge into interceptors 

owned and operated by Goleta Sanitary District. A 

long range solids management plan is needed to 

assure sludge disposal needs are met.
June 8, 2011 IV-24

The recommended plan for the City of Santa Barbara 

is to retain El Estero Wastewater Treatment Plant, 

with disposal to the Pacific Ocean, along with 

implementation of the City of Santa Barbara 

wastewater reclamation project. The City could 

consider implementing a cost-effective composting 

program to reduce transportation costs. The City 

implements a pretreatment program and also 

provides service to an unincorporated community in 

Mission Canyon located above the City.

The recommended plan for Montecito Sanitary 

District is to continue secondary treatment with 

disposal to the Pacific Ocean.

The recommended plan for Summerland Sanitary 

District is to expand and upgrade existing facilities to 

insure reliable plant operations and to accommodate 

planned growth. Recommended improvements are 

addition of standby power, dual processes, and 

continuous monitoring of total chlorine residual.

The recommended plan for Carpinteria Sanitary 

District is to retain existing secondary treatment 

facilities with disposal to the Pacific Ocean.

VI.C. INDUSTRIAL 

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT

In general, the alternatives available to industrial 

discharges are the following: (1) ocean discharge and 

compliance with the State Ocean Plan, the State 

Thermal Plan, and Public Law 92-500; (2) 

containment of nonsaline and non-toxic wastes on 

land; (3) reinjection of oil and gas production brines; 

(4) inland surface water discharge, if other 

alternatives are proved infeasible; and, (5) 

abandonment of the treatment facility and connection 

to a publicly owned treatment works. In most cases, 

alternatives will be limited by standards of 

performance and pretreatment standards being 

developed by EPA. It should also be noted that 

federal guidelines will be subject to regional 

considerations such as important fishery resources or 

wildlife areas which could necessitate making 

regional industrial discharge requirements more 

stringent than national performance standards.

Specific effluent limitations are being promulgated for 

existing industrial waste discharges together with 

standards of performance and pretreatment 

standards of performance for new sources pursuant 

to sections 304(b), 306 (b), and 307(b), of the federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. Effluent limitations were 

being circulated for comment by the EPA. Waste 

source categories of particular interest in the basin 

which will be covered by those sections of the federal 

law include:

Meat product and rendering processing 

Dairy product processing 

Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables 

processing 

Canned and preserved seafood processing 

Cement Manufacturing

Feedlots

Electroplating 

Beet sugar processing 

Petroleum production and refining 

Steam electric power plants

Leather tanning and finishing

Further information pertaining to industrial discharges 

can be found in the Management Principles and 

Control Actions Section of Chapter 5. The State 

Water Resources Control Board Plans and Policies 

Section, Discharge Prohibition Section, and Regional 

Board Policies Section are likely to apply (depending 

on site specific circumstances).
June 8, 2011 IV-25

VI.D. SOLID WASTE 

MANAGEMENT

The protection and maintenance of water resources 

requires consideration and regulation of solid waste 

management practices. This section discusses 

present and future solid waste production, existing 

disposal practices and their effect on water quality, 

and proposed plans for solid waste disposal within 

the study area.

Land disposal is regulated by the California Code of 

Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 15 (Chapter 15). In 

the vernacular of Chapter 15, wastes are classified as 

either hazardous waste, designated waste, 

nonhazardous solid waste, or inert waste. Waste 

Management Units (WMUs) are classified as either 

Class I, II, or III depending on the type of waste to be 

disposed of in the unit. Class I WMUs have the most 

restrictive siting criteria and must be constructed to 

provide optimum conditions for isolation of wastes 

from waters of the State. A double liner and a 

leachate collection and removal system (LCRS) is 

required for all Class I units. Class II WMUs also 

have relatively restrictive siting and construction 

standards and are designed to totally isolate wastes 

from the environment. Double liners and LCRSs are 

typically, but not always, required for Class II units. 

Class III WMUs must be sited and constructed such 

that no impairment of beneficial uses of surface or 

ground water beneath or adjacent to the site occurs. 

Siting and construction standards for Class III units 

are the least restrictive of the three, but the 

requirements are still considerable.

Wastes are considered hazardous if they meet the 

criteria defined in CCR Title 22, Section 66300. 

Examples of wastes that are considered hazardous 

include: waste solvents, waste pesticides, and waste 

electroplating solutions, to name a few. Hazardous 

wastes must be discharged only at Class I WMU.

Wastes are classified as designated if, under ambient 

conditions at the WMU, they may be released in 

concentrations in excess of applicable water quality 

objectives or cause degradation of waters of the 

State. Some examples of designated waste include, 

wet sewage treatment plant sludge, oil field wastes, 

and some drilling muds. Designated wastes must be 

disposed of only at Class I WMU's, or at Class II 

WMU's which are approved for that particular type of 

waste.

Nonhazardous solid wastes consist of the more 

typical household and industrial wastes including: 

trash; rubbish; ashes; demolition and construction 

wastes; discarded home and industrial appliances; 

manure; and vegetable or animal solid or semi-solid 

wastes provided they do not meet the criteria 

mentioned above for hazardous or designated 

wastes. Nonhazardous solid waste may be disposed 

of at any classified WMU, but normally it is disposed 

of only at Class III WMUs to conserve the diminishing 

volume in the few operating Class I and Class II 

WMUs.

Inert waste does not contain hazardous waste or 

soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of 

applicable water quality objectives and does not 

contain significant quantities of decomposable waste. 

Some examples of inert wastes include: broken up 

concrete rubble and excess clean earth fill. Inert 

wastes do not necessarily need to be disposed of at 

classified waste management units (i.e., Class I, II or 

III), but waste discharge requirements may be issued 

for the discharge at the discretion of the Regional 

Board.

There are 28 authorized active waste disposal sites 

regulated by the Central Coast Regional Board. Of 

the 28 sites, 26 are Class III landfills, with one Class I 

landfill, and one Class II surface impoundment. 

Additional information regarding a specific waste 

management unit can be found in the respective 

County Waste Management Plan in which the unit is 

located. 

In recent years, data indicates municipal solid waste 

landfills may be having a greater impact on water 

resources than was previously anticipated. 

Legislation was passed in 1984 which requires all 

owners of active, inactive, or former landfills to initiate 

a study to determine if the landfilling operation has 

had an impact on waters of the State. Approximately 

150 sites are evaluated per year throughout the 

State, with approximately nine sites per year coming 

from the Central Coastal Region. Further studies 

and/or corrective actions are initiated at all sites 

impacting State waters.
June 8, 2011 IV-26

A recent report from the Assembly Office of Research 

has documented California's dwindling remaining 

landfill capacity. In general, remaining landfill 

capacity within the Central Coastal Region is higher 

than most areas of the State. However, the ratio of 

landfill closures to landfill expansions or opening of 

new landfills within the region for the last five years is 

approximately 4:1. This ratio will probably remain the 

same or increase with the more stringent regulatory 

requirements and the time consuming permitting 

process required for siting of new waste management 

units. In order to avoid a landfill capacity crisis similar 

to the situation on the East Coast, our solid waste 

handling and disposal practices should be 

reevaluated and a more environmentally sound 

management practice should be developed.

The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 (TPCA) declares 

that discharges of liquid hazardous wastes or 

hazardous wastes containing free liquids into lined or 

unlined impoundments pose a serious threat to the 

quality of the waters of the State. Therefore, the 

legislature enacted TPCA as Article 9.5 (Surface 

Impoundments) of Chapter 6.5 (Hazardous Waste 

Control) of Division 20 of the California Health and 

Safety Code with the intent of insuring that existing 

surface impoundments were either made safe or 

were closed.

The effect of TPCA was to prohibit discharge (defined 

to include storage) of liquid hazardous wastes and 

hazardous wastes containing free liquids to surface 

impoundments, which did not satisfy specific 

construction and monitoring standards, by June 30, 

1988, or December 31, 1988, depending on the 

location and characteristics of the impoundment. 

TPCA allows specific exemptions with varying 

application and granting deadlines. However, on and 

after January 1, 1989, all discharge of liquid 

hazardous wastes and of hazardous wastes 

containing free liquids to surface impoundments 

which had not been granted exemptions, and which 

did not meet specific construction and monitoring 

standards, was prohibited. There is a rare set of 

circumstances which may exempt a surface 

impoundment from the January 1, 1989, deadline.

TPCA is fulfilling its goal of reducing the threat of 

liquid hazardous wastes to the waters of the State.

VI.D.1. SOLID WASTE DISCHARGE 

PROHIBITIONS

Discharge is prohibited as follows:

1. Any Class I solid waste material to any location 

other than Class I solid waste disposal site.

2. Any Class II solid waste materials to any location 

other than Class I or II solid waste disposal sites.

3. Solid wastes shall not be discharged to rivers, 

streams, creeks, or any natural drainage ways or 

flood plains of the foregoing.

VI.E. STORM WATER 

MANAGEMENT

Storm water runoff can be a significant pollution 

source. The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) estimates that at least 33% of all 

contamination in lakes and estuaries and 10% of all 

river contamination are caused by storm water runoff. 

Sources of pollution include runoff from industrial 

facilities, construction sites, and urban municipalities.

Federal regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

122.26) require certain industrial facility owners 

and/or operators to obtain storm water discharge 

permits. The specific types of facilities that need 

coverage is dependent upon the facility's Standard 

Industrial Classification Code. The program is 

primarily directed at manufacturing facilities, oil and 

gas extraction facilities, transportation maintenance 

facilities (trucking and mass transit), and construction 

sites (with greater than five acres of land 

disturbance). In addition, municipalities with 

populations greater than 100,000 must participate in 

a municipal storm water permitting program.

In August and September 1992, the State Water 

Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted the 

statewide General Construction Activity Storm Water 
June 8, 2011 IV-27

Permit and amended the statewide General Industrial 

Activities Storm Water Permit. The statewide permits 

expire five years after adoption. At that time, 

Regional Boards will most likely adopt Region 

specific General Permits.

The storm water program objectives include 

identification and elimination of pollutant contact with 

storm water by implementation of Best Management 

Practices. To obtain coverage under a General 

Permit, an applicant (i.e., those facilities required 

under 40 Code of Federal Regulations 122.26) must 

submit a Notice of Intent and the appropriate fee. 

The Notice of Intent is an agreement accepting the 

discharge specifications and monitoring requirements 

of the General Permit.

General Industrial Permit Requirements include the 

development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan and storm water runoff monitoring. The Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plan is a facility specific 

document which includes: a site description, facility 

processes, pollutant sources, storm water 

management system, employee education and 

training program, and measures proposed to 

eliminate non-storm water discharges. Minimum 

monitoring and reporting requirements include: 

sampling and analysis of four pollutant indicator 

parameters, wet and dry weather storm water 

conveyance system inspections, and annual 

reporting. The Regional Board can recommend 

additional monitoring parameters based on the 

presence of specific pollutant sources.

The Construction Permit has similar requirements 

regarding development of a storm water pollution 

prevention plan, but mainly deals with reducing 

pollutant sources associated with erosion and 

sediment transfer and chemicals used at construction 

sites. The monitoring requirements are less stringent 

and no sampling is required.

Annual monitoring reports required by the Industrial 

permit are due July 1 of each year. Sampling results 

and annual report information will be used to prioritize 

Regional Board staff education and enforcement 

efforts and to develop future group general permits. 

Compliance is measured through implementation of 

pollution prevention Best Management Practices, 

reduction in pollutant loadings, and accurate and 

timely report submittal.

VI.F. BAY PROTECTION AND 

TOXIC CLEANUP PROGRAM

The State Water Resources Control Board (State 

Board) established the Bay Protection and Toxic 

Cleanup Program in response to legislation enacted 

in 1989 (Chapter 269; Senate Bill 475 Torres) which 

added Chapter 5.6, Sections 13390 through 13396, 

to the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act. The Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup 

Program is a statewide program that is coordinated 

with the California Department of Fish and Game and 

California Environmental Protection Agency's Office 

of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. The 

Water Code requires the State and Regional Water 

Quality Control Boards to do the following to attain 

the goals of the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup 

Program:

1. Develop and maintain a program to identify toxic 

hot spots, plan for their cleanup or mitigation, and 

amend Water Quality Control Plans/Policies to 

abate toxic hot spots;

2. Formulate and adopt a Water Quality Control Plan 

for enclosed bays and estuaries;

3. Review and, if necessary, revise Waste Discharge 

Requirements to conform to the Plan;

4. Develop a database of toxic hot spots;

5. Develop an ongoing monitoring and surveillance 

program;

6. Develop sediment quality objectives;

7. Develop criteria for assessment and priority 

ranking of toxic hot spots; and

8. Fund the program through fees on point and 

nonpoint dischargers. (California Code of 

Regulations, Title 17, Section 2236, authorizes the 

fee program).

Funds for the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup 

Program will come from user fees, as proposed by 

State Board staff. User fees have been drafted for the 

following:
June 8, 2011 IV-28

1. All NPDES and WDR dischargers to the ocean, 

bays, or estuaries;

2. Counties or cities which operate a storm drain 

system which discharges to the ocean, a bay, or 

estuary;

3. Dischargers of agricultural drainage to the ocean, 

bays, or estuaries;

4. Boat construction and repair facilities;

5. Boat marinas and recreational facilities;

6. Operators of commercial harbors and ports; and

7. Operators of dredging discharges.

The fees are based on threat to water quality, as 

defined by the Waste Discharge System (WDS) 

ranking system (threat to water quality and 

complexity criteria).

The Central Coast Regional Board has identified 17 

potential toxic hot spots to be addressed under this 

program. These 17 sites are identified in the 

Appendix. An assessment/monitoring plan has been 

developed for potential toxic hot spots. Potential hot 

spots are ranked according to threat to beneficial 

uses. The assessment/monitoring plan includes the 

following:

1. Definition of the extent of degradation;

2. Analysis of existing point and nonpoint discharges 

in the area;

3. Identification of contaminant sources; and

4. Development of options for removing the threat to 

beneficial uses, including consideration of 

additional effluent limits on point and nonpoint 

discharges and actual cleanup.

VI.G. MILITARY 

INSTALLATIONS

Military installations throughout the country include 

some of the largest and most complex contamination 

problems. In 1987, President Reagan signed into law 

Executive Order No. 12580 directing all federal 

facilities to investigate and remediate areas of 

environmental contamination. As a result, the U.S. 

Department of Defense has assumed responsibility 

for investigation and remediation at military bases. 

Certain environmental restoration projects involving 

hazardous materials and wastes from past military 

activities are being addressed through what is known 

as the U.S. Department of Defense Program. 

Although U.S. Department of Defense has assumed 

environmental restoration responsibility, the Regional 

Board is an active oversight participant.

From its inception, the Regional Board has been 

involved with a variety of military installation activities. 

Since 1990, this Regional Board has been actively 

and extensively involved in U.S. Department of 

Defense Program investigations and remedial 

activities at numerous military facilities within its 

jurisdiction. Active military installations in the Region 

addressed by the U.S. Department of Defense 

Program (current as of 1993) include Fort Ord, 

Presidio of Monterey, Monterey Naval Post Graduate 

School, Fort Hunter Liggett, Camp Roberts, Estero 

Bay Defense Fuel Supply Point, and Vandenburg Air 

Force Base. Fort Ord is unique since it is a closing 

base and has been identified as a federal superfund 

site. Four formerly used defense sites in the Region 

undergoing U.S. Department of Defense remediation 

(as of 1993) include: Camp San Luis Obispo -

California National Guard, Camp San Luis Obispo - 

San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles Airport, and 

Santa Barbara Airport. Potentially additional military 

facilities can be added to the U.S. Department of 

Defense Program.

Program Background

Decades of intense military activities have generated 

significant quantities of hazardous waste. As a result 

of insufficient internal control, improper handling and 

disposal practices, and inadequate regulation, military 

installations are now considered one of the Nation's 

most significant environmental polluters. Pollution 

problems are exacerbated by the large base size, the 

complex and varying missions, as well as routine 

personnel changes and inconsistent regulation and 

control. Many bases are actually small to midsize, 
June 8, 2011 IV-29

totally contained communities providing complete 

services for base operations. Services vary from base 

to base, but range from aircraft, vehicle, or shop 

maintenance and repair facilities to laundry services, 

photo shops, gas stations, and other typical municipal 

services (e.g., utilities, streets, water supply, 

sewerage, and solid waste disposal).

Past waste disposal practices in both government 

and private industries were insufficient to protect 

public health and the environment. Environmental 

laws and regulation developed in the 1970s 

addressed many deficiencies, but federal operations, 

especially the military, remained inadequately 

addressed. The military was adamant that sovereign 

immunity protected them from State and local 

environmental regulation. Enforcement actions to 

force the military to comply with State and federal 

regulation were often protracted or disregarded. In 

1976, U.S. Department of Defense developed its 

Installation-Restoration Program to help identify, 

investigate, and cleanup contamination from past 

operations. Due to funding and timing, Program 

activities were initiated at most military facilities in the 

early 1980s.

In 1980, the federal Comprehensive, Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), which is also referred to as "Superfund" 

was enacted to address cleanup of hazardous 

substance disposal and spill sites. The Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act was enacted in 

1986 to enhance hazardous waste cleanup. The 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, in 

part, mandated the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program specifically to address cleanups 

at U.S. Department of Defense facilities. The 

Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

included an Inland Restoration Program as a 

component. To carry out required environmental 

restoration at its military facilities, U.S. Department of 

Defense established the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Account as the funding mechanism.

Executive Order No. 12580 was enacted in 1987 to 

intensify investigation and remediation of 

environmental problems. The Executive Order 

directed all federal agencies to ensure environmental 

restoration. To comply with this Executive Order, U.S. 

Department of Defense has assumed lead 

responsibility to cleanup military bases throughout the 

world. California has the largest number of active 

military bases covered by the military cleanup plan.

As a result of Executive Order No. 12580 and 

growing public awareness, U.S. Department of 

Defense is now actively pursuing environmental 

restoration at military facilities. U.S. Department of 

Defense has demonstrated its restoration sincerity by 

providing oversight reimbursement to the State. The 

Defense/State Memorandum of Agreement signed by 

U.S. Department of Defense and State of California 

officials, provides State oversight cost reimbursement 

to a maximum of one percent (1%) of the total 

cleanup cost. The Memorandum of Agreement 

requires preparation and administration of a 

cooperative agreement between the State and Corp 

of Engineers to verify funding and services for 

remedial responses. The Memorandum of 

Agreement lists specific sites for which the State will 

receive federal funding for its oversight and 

regulatory involvement. In California, Regional 

Boards and the Department of Toxic Substances 

Control share State regulatory responsibility and 

reimbursement dollars allocated to the U.S. 

Department of Defense Program.

To ensure proper regulatory compliance and 

environmental restoration, Executive Order No. 

12580 requires all federal agencies to complete 

cleanup pursuant to "Superfund." This means 

cleanups at all military installations must comply with 

the stringent federal CERCLA requirements, whether 

or not the base is a listed Superfund site. The Act 

requires federal facilities which are placed on the 

Superfund National Priorities List by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), to 

conduct cleanup following the National Contingency 

Plan and U.S. EPA procedures and standards. In 

this Region, Fort Ord is the only currently listed U.S. 

Department of Defense Superfund National Priority 

List site.

In addition to following federal CERCLA 

requirements, Superfund National Priority List sites 

must be conducted pursuant to agreements called 

Federal Facility Agreements. These agreements are 
June 8, 2011 IV-30

between the federal agency owning the base (e.g., 

Department of the Army at Fort Ord) and the U.S. 

EPA. The agreements may include certain State 

agencies. The Fort Ord Federal Facility Agreement 

includes the Regional Board and Department of Toxic 

Substances Control as signatories.

By federal law non-Superfund military sites must 

cleanup hazardous waste releases pursuant to 

federal Comprehensive, Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act requirements and to 

State laws. Federal non-Superfund facilities may 

enter into a State compliance agreement. Such an 

agreement is called a Federal Facility Site 

Remediation Agreement. At Vandenburg Air Force 

Base (a non-Superfund site), a Federal Facility Site 

Remediation Agreement was signed by the 

Department of the Air Force, the Regional Board, and 

Department of Toxic Substances Control in June 

1991. Both Federal Facility Agreements and Federal 

Facility Site Remediation Agreements identify roles, 

responsibilities, dispute resolution procedures, and 

schedules.

By signing an agreement (Federal Facility Agreement 

and Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement), 

and following federal CERCLA requirements, site 

remediation is modified from typical State 

procedures. The modification eliminates the need for 

State and local permits and enforcement action. 

Generally, Waste Discharge Requirements, Cleanup 

of Abatement Orders, and local agency permits are 

not imposed. Such provisions were included to 

ensure compliance with stringent federal cleanup 

standards, while limiting permit and enforcement 

involvement by local or State Agencies. In some 

parts of the Country, local and State involvement 

slowed or obstructed cleanup efforts.

The federal CERCLA (Section 121) does require 

compliance with State and federal laws and 

regulations which are more stringent than the 

CERCLA, and which are necessary to ensure sitespecific environmental and public health protection. 

This compliance process is referred to as 

"Applicable" or "Relevant and Appropriate" 

requirements, because it allows consideration of 

either "Applicable" or "Relevant and Appropriate" 

requirements pursuant to State or federal law and 

regulations. At Superfund sites, 

U.S. EPA has final authority to approve "Applicable" 

or "Relevant and Appropriate" requirements. At nonSuperfund sites, the lead State agency is responsible 

to ensure "Applicable" or "Relevant and Appropriate" 

requirements are identified.

Federal Comprehensive, Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) 

Response Process

Although cleanup pursuant to the federal CERCLA is 

quite complex, it was developed with the intent of 

simplifying regulatory requirements in a uniform 

manner and expediting environmental cleanup and 

restoration. The Act, although similar, is significantly 

more complex than the Regional Board's typical 

cleanup procedures pursuant to the California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act. Following is a 

very simplified summary of the basic "Superfund" 

response process.

Many initial past military installation investigations 

included a Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection. 

The Preliminary Assessment is an assessment based 

on existing, readily available information. The 

Preliminary Assessment attempts to evaluate the 

magnitude of a potential hazard and identify the 

source and nature of hazard release. The Site 

Inspection includes a site visit and possibly sample 

collection, soil borings, and well installation. The Site 

Inspection is intended to better characterize the 

problem and determine the need for further action. 

Often, information from the Preliminary 

Assessment/Site Inspection is used to place a site on 

the Superfund list.

Once a site has been Superfund listed, or has been 

identified as requiring remedial activities, more indepth characterization is required. The next phase of 

remedial activities-site characterization is called the 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. The 

Remedial Investigation is the mechanism for 

collecting detailed site data to define fully the nature 

and extent of contamination. During the Remedial 

Investigation, treatability studies may be conducted to 

evaluate available treatment technologies in support 

of remedy selection. The Feasibility Study focuses 

on developing and screening specific remedial 

alternatives. The Feasibility Study goal is to identify 

preferred cleanup alternatives. The Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study includes risk 

assessment, identifies "Applicable" or "Relevant and 

Appropriate" requirements, and develops cleanup 

goals.
June 8, 2011 IV-31

The next phase is the Proposed Plan, which presents 

the preferred cleanup alternatives and allows public 

input. After public comments are considered, a 

Record of Decision is prepared at Superfund sites. 

The Record of Decision establishes cleanup levels 

and discharge standards and is based, in part, on 

identified "Applicable" or "Relevant and Appropriate" 

requirements. When the Record of Decision is 

complete and acceptable, the selected remedy is 

administratively approved by the military department, 

U.S. EPA, and the State (Regional Boards and 

Department of Toxic Substances Control). The final 

cleanup levels are established and "frozen" in the 

Record of Decision. Agencies that signed the 

Federal Facility Agreements also sign the Final 

Record of Decision. At non-Superfund sites in 

California, the typical document establishing the 

cleanup levels and discharge standards is called the 

Remedial Action Plan. The Remedial Action Plan is 

signed by the agencies that signed the Federal 

Facility Site Remediation Agreement. Decision 

Documents are used sometimes to identify cleanup 

levels for individual sites at non-Superfund 

installations. Agencies and the public can petition 

U.S. EPA to change the Record of Decision levels (or 

the State to change the Remedial Action Plan), if 

substantial evidence is available demonstrating that 

an established cleanup level is not protective of 

human health and the environment.

Once the Record of Decision (or Remedial Action 

Plan) is signed, Remedial Design plans are prepared 

to implement the Record of Decision. Remedial 

Action, the long-term remediation, begins when

Remedial Design and construction are complete. 

Operation and maintenance, including monitoring, 

evaluate long term performance and ensure that the 

Remedial Action is carried out as intended. Long 

term remediation (e.g., ground water cleanup) 

continues until conditions of the Record of Decision 

(or Remedial Action Plan) have been met. 

Remediation progress must be evaluated at least 

every five years.

The federal CERCLA includes the Removal Action 

process to allow remediation of small/limited areas of 

contamination or time critical cleanups. A Removal 

Action may be undertaken at any time to address 

problems that do not require a full scale remediation 

project. Removal Actions are short term activities 

that remove immediate threats to public health or that 

can be implemented in a timely manner. 

Generally, Removal Actions are limited to $2 million 

and are completed in twelve months or less (e.g., 

removal and proper disposal of a small volume of 

surface soil contamination).

It is worthy to note that environmental assessment is 

addressed during the Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study process. All military 

installations must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act by preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No 

Significant Impact. An Environmental Impact 

Statement is similar to an Environmental Impact 

Report and a Finding of No Significant Impact is 

similar to a Negative Declaration in California. In 

California, National Environmental Policy Act 

compliance may not be sufficient to address all 

environmental impacts; thus, environmental 

assessment must also comply with the California 

Environmental Quality Act.

Regional Board Responsibility

The federal Clean Water Act and the California 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act give the 

Regional Board regulatory responsibility and authority 

to protect water quality, including waters within and 

beneath federal lands. The primary role of the 

Regional Board and its staff, relative to military 

installations (U.S. Department of Defense Program) 

is to ensure that waters of the State are adequately 

protected. Involvement includes review and direction 

of all investigation and remediation documents, site 

visits to guide field activities, and oversight to ensure 

that cleanup/remediation is carried out properly to 

protect beneficial uses of water resources. 

Identification of "Applicable" or "Relevant and 

Appropriate" requirements and direction on cleanup 

level establishment require considerable involvement 

by the Regional Board and its staff.

Typically, the U.S. EPA is the lead regulatory agency 

at Superfund sites (e.g., Fort Ord). The Regional 

Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control 

are responsible State agencies. In the past, at nonSuperfund sites (all other military installations in the 

Region) either the Regional Board or Department of 

Toxic Substances Control has been the lead 

regulatory agency. At military installations where 

water quality and public health is threatened or 

impacted due to the release of hazardous 
June 8, 2011 IV-32

substances, the Regional Board and Department of 

Toxic Substances Control may have overlapping 

jurisdiction. A Memorandum of Understanding exists 

between the State Water Resources Control Board, 

the Regional Boards, and Department of Toxic 

Substances Control specifying roles and 

responsibilities in hazardous waste cleanups where 

overlap may occur. In September 1993, the 

California Environmental Protection Agency 

requested the overall State "lead" become 

Department of Toxic Substance Control's 

responsibility. This transition should not impact the 

basic responsibilities. In general, Regional Boards 

have primary regulatory responsibility for water and 

soils directly related to water quality protection. 

Department of Toxic Substances Control has primary 

regulatory responsibility for public health protection, 

soil (where waters are not involved), air, and 

hazardous waste treatment and storage.

In this Region, the Regional Board has been the lead 

State agency at six of the currently active (1993) U.S. 

Department of Defense facilities (Vandenberg Air 

Force Base, Estero Bay Defense Fuel Supply Point, 

Camp Roberts, Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey Naval 

Post-Graduate School, and Presidio of Monterey). 

These sites are shown in Figure 4-1. The lead may 

be shared with Department of Toxic Substances 

Control at Fort Hunter Liggett, since there are several 

federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

sites requiring investigation. In California, U.S. EPA 

has authorized Department of Toxic Substances 

Control to implement 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program 

compliance.

Agreements have been signed only at Fort Ord and 

Vandenberg Air Force Base in this Region. The 

Federal Facility Agreements for Fort Ord identifies the 

Regional Board as a support agency since the U.S. 

EPA is the lead regulatory agency. The current 

Federal Facility Site Remediation Agreement 

identifies the Regional Board as the lead agency at 

Vandenberg Air Force Base. Agreements could be 

negotiated at other military installations, or renegotiated when they currently exist, if and when it 

becomes necessary to clarify roles and 

responsibilities. Changes are being considered in 

California to streamline regulatory processes 

associated with military installation cleanup, 

particularly at closing bases. The California 

Environmental Protection Agency has recently 

designated (September 1993) Department of Toxic 

Substances Control as the overall State lead at 

military installations. This designation will impact 

program activities, roles, and responsibilities.

VI.H. SPILLS, LEAKS, 

INVESTIGATIONS AND 

CLEANUP PROGRAM

The Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup 

program was established to allow Regional Boards to 

address water quality problems and potential 

problems resulting from discharges not covered by 

other State programs. Investigations and cleanups of 

Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup program 

sites proceed as described in State Board Resolution 

No. 92-49 explained in the "Hazardous Waste 

Compliance Issues" section later in this chapter.

Spill, Leak, and Complaint Responses

Regional Board staff responds to complaints of 

nuisance conditions (e.g., odors from sewage 

treatment plants) and discharges or threatened 

discharges of substances which may impact ground 

and/or surface water quality. Complaints are followed 

up as soon as feasible. Proper response to a 

complaint includes the following:

Completion of a Central Coast Region spill report 

form.

Notification to other responsible agencies, or 

interested parties, as needed.
June 8, 2011 IV-33

Figure 4-1. Active Military Installations in the Central Coast Region
June 8, 2011 IV-34

Site inspection to determine validity of the 

complaint and to assess the situation, including 

determination of responsible party/parties.

Written follow-up as needed (letters, cleanup or 

abatement orders, and/or waste discharge 

requirements)

Except in cases where anonymity is requested, 

notification to complainant of findings and 

subsequent actions, if any.

Except for a discharge in compliance with waste 

discharge requirements, any person who causes or 

permits any reportable quantity of hazardous 

substance or sewage to be discharged in or on any 

waters of the State, or discharged or deposited 

where it is or probably will be discharged into or on 

any waters of the State, shall, as soon as possible, 

notify the Office of Emergency Services of the 

discharge in accordance with the spill reporting 

provision of the State toxic disaster contingency 

plan. The person shall also immediately notify the 

State Board or the appropriate Regional Board of 

the discharge (California Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act Section 13271).

Similarly any person who discharges any oil or 

petroleum product under the above stated conditions 

shall, as soon as possible, notify the Office of 

Emergency Services of the discharge in accordance 

with the spill reporting provision of the State oil spill 

contingency plan. Immediate notification of an 

appropriate agency of the federal government, or of 

the appropriate Regional Board (in accordance with 

the reporting requirements set under California 

Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act Section 

13267 or 13383) shall satisfy the oil spill notification 

requirements of this paragraph (California PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act Section 13272).

The Regional Board staff will assist other agencies 

and work cooperatively at large-scale hazardous 

material releases resulting from surface 

transportation accidents. The Regional Board staff's 

role is primarily to provide immediate, on-site 

technical assistance concerning water quality in 

order to minimize the potential damage to the public 

health and safety, and the environment. In cases of 

railroad incidents, Regional Board staff will work with 

other agencies pursuant to the Office of Emergency 

Services Railroad Accident Prevention 

and Immediate Deployment Plan. Specifically, 

Regional Board staff are required to:

Provide information on existing downstream 

beneficial uses and potential impacts from 

released substances.

Provide toxicity information about released 

substances.

Set up water sediment monitoring program.

Collect water samples or provide technical 

assistance for others to collect samples.

Coordinate available resources and equipment.

VI.I. UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

In 1981, citizens of Santa Clara County determined 

the cause of numerous birth defects to be polluted 

ground water. The source of pollution was traced to 

underground storage tanks leaking chlorinated 

solvents. This revelation prompted the San 

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 

to investigate numerous other underground storage 

tanks, the majority of which were found to be 

leaking. The Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs 

Association then sponsored a task force which 

developed, in 1982, a Model Hazardous Material 

Storage Permit Ordinance. The Ordinance 

addressed materials regulated, secondary 

containment, permits, inspections, and so forth.

Recognizing the problem was a statewide problem, 

the Legislature passed the initial State underground 

storage tank law in 1983, and numerous counties 

and cities followed with local ordinances to regulate 

underground storage of hazardous materials. The 

State law contains a sunset provision with a 

termination date of January 1, 1998.

Since 1985, over 21,000 leaking tank sites have 

been reported statewide and over 1250 have been 

reported within the Central Coast Region. Of the 

reported cases, approximately 90% are petroleum 
June 8, 2011 IV-35

product cases and one-third have impacted ground 

water. As one might expect, Regions with the larger 

cities (thus more gasoline stations) have the largest 

number of reported leaks. The same holds true in 

the Central Coast Region. Santa Barbara County 

has almost fifty percent of the cases in this Region 

(up from 37% a few years ago) and San Benito 

County has only four percent; Monterey County has 

about twenty percent.

The Health and Safety Code gives both Regional 

Boards and local agencies authority to oversee 

investigation and cleanup of leaky Underground 

Petroleum Storage Tank sites. The California Code 

of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 16, Article 11 

requires local agencies to oversee leak reporting 

and tank closures. Two agencies within the Central 

Coast Region, Santa Clara and Santa Barbara 

Counties, also provide oversight for cleanup of leaky 

Tank sites under a Local Oversight Program contract 

with the State Board.

Unauthorized releases from underground tanks are 

reported to the Regional Board by local agencies or 

private parties. Generally, investigation and cleanup 

of leaky Underground Petroleum Storage Tank sites 

is shared between the Regional Board and local 

agencies. Typically the Regional Board oversees 

cases involving impact to surface and ground water 

and local agencies oversee impacts to soil. 

However, in some circumstances the Regional 

Board oversees both soil and ground water cleanup, 

and, in Santa Barbara and Santa Clara Counties, 

Local Oversight Programs oversee both soil and 

ground water cleanup.

Investigations and cleanup of leaky Tanks are 

carried out in a manner similar to investigations and 

cleanups in the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and 

Cleanup Program mentioned earlier.

To assist responsible parties to pay for cleanups and 

to meet federal financial responsibility requirements, 

the State has established a Tank Cleanup Fund. 

Money for the fund is generated by a fee paid for 

each gallon of petroleum delivered to Tanks. 

Owners and operators of Tanks may draw upon the 

fund after paying for the initial $10,000 in cleanup 

costs. The Fund will pay up to $990,000 per 

cleanup.

Underground Petroleum Storage Tank regulations 

regarding construction, monitoring, repair, release 

reporting, and corrective action are found in the 

California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, 

Chapter 16. Regulations regarding the State's 

Underground Petroleum Storage Tank Cleanup fund 

are found in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, 

Division 3, Chapter 18, and regulations regarding 

underground testers are found in California Code of 

Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 17.

VI.J. ABOVEGROUND 

PETROLEUM STORAGE 

TANKS

Above ground petroleum storage tanks and 

associated piping leaks have been found to cause 

impacts to surface and ground water. Prior to 1990, 

above ground tank sites were regulated by the 

United States "Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulations on Oil Pollution Prevention", 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 112, as amended. On 

January 1, 1990, the Above Ground Petroleum 

Storage Act became effective as Chapter 6.67 

(commencing with Section 25270), Division 20, of 

the Health and Safety Code and amendment to 

Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code. The 

regulations require:

Regional Boards to inspect above ground 

storage tanks used for crude oil and its fractions;

Owners or operators of tank facilities to prepare 

and initiate a spill prevention control and 

countermeasure plan in accordance with Part 

112, Subchapter D, Chapter I, Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations by January 1, 1991 

and any required monitoring program within 180 

days later;

Tank facility owners or operators to report 

releases of crude oil and its fractions in excess of 

one barrel; and

Owners or operators of tank facilities to submit a 

storage statement and appropriate filing fee 

every two years.
June 8, 2011 IV-36

The Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act 

provides for recovery of cost incurred by 

Regional Board staff for oversight of above 

ground tank site cleanups.

VI.K. CALIFORNIA CODE OF 

REGULATIONS, TITLE 23, 

CHAPTER 15

The California Code of Regulations, Title 23, 

Chapter 15 (Chapter 15) contains minimum, 

prescriptive standards for proper management of 

applicable wastes. Landfills, surface impoundments, 

septage and sludge disposal, mining operations, 

confined animal facilities, and some oil field 

exploration and production facilities are regulated 

according to Chapter 15. Regional Boards may 

impose more stringent requirements to 

accommodate regional and/or site-specific 

conditions. Factors affecting site specific 

considerations include: depth to ground water, 

permeability of underlying soils, geologic structure, 

importance of underlying ground water uses, waste 

characteristics, ability to remediate leaks, adequacy 

of the monitoring system, proximity of beneficial 

uses such as aquatic life, and others.

Dischargers may propose engineering alternatives 

to the construction or prescriptive standards 

contained in Chapter 15 if they can show the 

prescriptive standard is not feasible (i.e., too difficult 

or costly to implement, or not likely to perform 

adequately under the given circumstances). The 

proposed alternative must be able to provide 

equivalent management of the waste, and must not 

be less stringent than the prescribed standards.

Discharges to land which may be exempt from 

Chapter 15 are listed in the Basin Plan Waiver 

Policy in Chapter Five.

Wastes fall into four categories under the current 

classification system. These four categories are: 

Hazardous, Designated, Non-Hazardous, and Inert, 

and are defined in Article 2 of Chapter 15. 

Hazardous and Designated wastes can often be 

generated by the same source and may differ only 

by their concentrations of given constituents.

Wastes must be disposed of differently depending 

on their liquids content and the waste category into 

which they fall. A table containing the Summary of 

Waste Management Strategies for Discharge of 

Waste to Land is provided in the appendix.

Receiving water monitoring is required at all waste 

management units. Article 5 discusses the 

monitoring requirements for the various classes of 

waste management units, and describes the 

progressive phases of monitoring.

The routine ground water monitoring conducted 

during the entire compliance period of a project's life 

is referred to as "detection monitoring". If a release 

(leak) is detected during the course of detection 

monitoring, an "evaluation monitoring" program must 

be established. If the evaluation monitoring verifies 

the presence of a leak, a decision must be made as 

to whether the release represents a significant 

enough threat to water quality and the environment 

to warrant corrective action. If the leak is a 

significant water quality threat, a "corrective action 

program" must be established, including monitoring 

of the effectiveness of corrective action, and 

conducted until the problem has been successfully 

corrected.

Vadose zone monitoring must be conducted at all 

waste management units where feasible. Article 5 

discusses the minimum requirements for an 

acceptable vadose zone monitoring program.

Special requirements for confined animal facilities 

are discussed in Article 6 of Chapter 15 and in 

Chapter 5 of this Basin Plan. These facilities are 

also subject to other portions of Chapter 15 as 

applicable.

Under Chapter 15, mining waste discharges are only 

subject to the requirements of Article 7, or other

portions of Chapter 15 as referenced by Article 7. 

(Mining wastes are also subject to regulation under 

the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, Public 

Resources Code Title 14, Division 2, Chapter 9).

Discharges of hazardous and nonhazardous waste, 

and the waste management units at which the 

wastes are discharged (e.g., landfills, surface 

impoundments), are regulated by the Regional 

Board through Waste Discharge Requirements to 

properly contain the wastes, and to ensure effective 

monitoring is undertaken to protect water resources 
June 8, 2011 IV-37

of the Region. These waste discharges are also 

concurrently regulated by other State and local 

agencies. Local agencies implement the State's 

solid waste management programs as well as local 

ordinances governing the siting, design, and 

operation of solid waste disposal facilities (usually 

landfills) with the concurrence of the California 

Integrated Waste Management Board.

The California Integrated Waste Management Board 

also has direct responsibility for review and approval 

of plans for closure and post-closure maintenance of 

solid waste landfills. The Department of Toxic 

Substance Control issues permits for all hazardous 

waste management, treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities. The State Board, Regional 

Boards, California Integrated Waste Management 

Board, and Department of Toxic Substances Control 

have entered into Memorandums of Understanding 

to coordinate their respective roles in the concurrent 

regulation of these discharges.

The laws and regulations governing both hazardous 

and nonhazardous solid waste disposal have been 

revised and strengthened in recent years.

An inactive waste management unit can still pose a 

threat to water quality. In fact, due to the nature of 

some wastes and the characteristics of some 

disposal sites, sometimes water quality problems do 

not become evident until years after a site has 

closed. Therefore, Chapter 15 requires all waste 

management units have a plan for acceptable 

closure procedures and post-closure maintenance 

and monitoring.

VI.K.1. SOLID AND LIQUID WASTE 

REQUIREMENTS (LANDFILLS AND 

SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS)

Solid wastes are usually disposed of in a landfill or 

Solid Waste Disposal Site. A landfill, as defined in 

Chapter 15, is a waste management unit at which 

waste is discharged in or on land for disposal. A 

landfill may be classified as Class I, II, or III, 

depending on the type of waste being accepted, but 

the term "landfill" typically refers to a Class III 

municipal solid waste landfill which accepts only 

inert or non-hazardous, municipal solid waste. Class 

I units are for hazardous wastes, Class II units are 

for designated wastes, and Class III landfills are for 

nonhazardous wastes as defined in Chapter 15, 

Article 3. Landfills are an integral component of 

many communities in the Central Coast Region. 

Hazardous and/or designated solid wastes must be 

disposed of in Class I or II landfills or waste piles, 

respectively, also referred to as Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act or non-Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act solid waste 

management units.

Liquid wastes may not be disposed of to Class III 

waste management units. Rather, liquid wastes 

must be discharged to Class I or II surface 

impoundments, depending on the waste 

classification.

Discharges from solid and liquid waste management 

units can impact both ground and surface waters. 

The receiving water most likely to be at risk from a 

waste management unit is the ground water beneath 

the site. Precipitation or runoff may enter the unit 

and contact the waste, percolate through it, and 

travel to ground water, carrying constituents of the 

waste with it to the vadose zone or ground water 

beneath the unit. Solid waste may contain enough 

free liquids to form a leachate which can migrate to 

ground water. Vapors may migrate from a waste 

management unit into the soils and ground water 

below the unit. Gases forming in a closed waste 

management unit may pressurize the unit and force 

contaminants into the ground water. A liquid waste 

impoundment may leak its content into the soils and 

ground water beneath the unit. Liquids may exit a 

waste management unit and travel to nearby surface 

waters. Uncontained solid waste may also be 

transported to surface waters by wind.

The Regional Board regulates all the active waste 

management units and some of the closed units in 

the Region under Waste Discharge Requirements 

which contain pertinent Chapter 15 regulations. 

Some of the applicable requirements include:

1. Waste management units must be sited in 

locations where they will not extend over a known 

Holocene fault, other areas of rapid geologic 

change or into areas with inadequate separation 

from ground water.
June 8, 2011 IV-38

2. Waste management units must be constructed to 

minimize (Class III) or prevent (Class I and II) the 

possibility of leachate contacting ground water. 

The probability of accomplishing this goal may be 

improved by siting the unit in an area where the 

depth to ground water is very great or where 

natural geologic features will provide 

containment. A Class III waste management unit 

is required to have a composite clay and 

synthetic liner with a leachate collection and 

removal system, in accordance with federal 

Subtitle D requirements. New Class I and II units

must also be lined. A discharger may propose 

engineered alternatives to the Chapter 15 and 

Subtitle D containment requirements, but the 

alternatives must provide equal or greater 

protection to the receiving waters at the site, per 

Article One.

3. To minimize or prevent the formation of leachate, 

solid waste management units shall be covered 

periodically (typically daily) with soil or other 

approved materials. The importance of effective 

interim cover is illustrated by recent 

improvements to some landfill interim covers 

which resulted in an apparent cessation of 

ground water degradation. Rainwater surface 

flow from offsite should be prevented from 

entering a waste management unit and 

contacting the wastes in the unit.

4. The potential receiving waters shall be 

monitored. A waste management unit shall have 

sufficient ground water monitoring wells at 

appropriate locations and depths to yield ground 

water samples from the uppermost water bearing 

strata with continued saturation at depth, to 

provide the best assurance of the earliest 

possible detection of a release from the waste 

management unit. Perched ground water zones 

shall also be monitored. Background monitoring 

should be conducted for at least one year prior to 

opening a new waste management unit.

Chapter 15 requires vadose zone monitoring at 

all new sites and at any existing site, unless it 

can be shown to the satisfaction of the Regional 

Board no vadose zone monitoring devices would 

work at the site, or that installation of vadose 

zone monitoring devices would require 

unreasonable dismantling or relocating of 

permanent structures.

5. All operating waste management units must have 

an approved closure/post-closure monitoring and 

maintenance plan and their operators must 

provide the Regional Board with assurance 

sufficient funds are irrevocably committed to 

ensure the site will be properly reclaimed and 

maintained.

6. The operator of a waste management unit must 

obtain and maintain assurances of financial 

responsibility for known and foreseeable releases 

from the unit.

VI.K.2. WASTEWATER 

SLUDGE/SEPTAGE MANAGEMENT

Wastewater sludge (biosolids) is a by-product of 

wastewater treatment. Treated domestic sludge is 

now referred to as biosolids to encourage using this 

material for fertilizer and soil amendment. Raw 

sludge usually contains 93 to 99.5 percent water 

with the balance being solids present in the 

wastewater and added to or cultured by wastewater 

treatment processes. Most Publically Owned 

Treatment Works treat the sludge prior to ultimate 

use or disposal. Normally, this treatment consists of 

dewatering and/or digestion.

Treated and untreated sludges may contain high 

concentrations of heavy metals, organic pollutants, 

pathogens, and nitrates. Improper storage and 

disposal of municipal sludges on land can result in 

degradation of ground and surface water. 

Therefore, sludge handling and disposal must be 

regulated.

Septage and grease are usually considered liquid 

waste, so landfill disposal is usually restricted. 

Septage, the residual solids periodically pumped 

from septic tanks, is commonly applied to farm land 

as fertilizer. Grease waste is usually recycled, but 

grease trap pumpings are commonly rejected by 

grease recyclers. Grease and septage usually must 

be disposed in a Class I or II waste management 

unit.

The Regional Board will regulate disposal of sludge 

and septage pursuant to Chapter 15 and 

Department 
June 8, 2011 IV-39

of Health Services standards for sludge 

management.

Sludge containing less than 50% solids by weight 

may be placed in a Class III landfill (see section on 

Chapter 15) if it can meet the following 

requirements, otherwise it must be placed in a Class 

II surface impoundment:

1. The landfill is equipped with a leachate collection 

and removal system;

2. The sludge must contain at least 20 percent 

solids if primary sludge, or at least 15 percent 

solids if secondary sludge, mixtures of primary 

and secondary sludges, or water treatment 

sludge; and

3. A minimum solids-to-liquid ratio of 5:1 by weight 

must be maintained to ensure that the codisposal will not exceed the initial moistureholding capacity of the nonhazardous solid 

waste. The Regional Board may require that a 

more stringent solids-to-liquid ratio be 

maintained, based on site-specific conditions.

4. Non-hazardous sludge containing greater than 

50% solids by weight is generally considered 

solid waste.

Beneficial reuse of sludge/septage is increasing in 

popularity. Sludges and septage, (including 

composted, liquid, dewatered and dried sludges) 

have been successfully used as a soil 

amendment/fertilizer on farmland, orchards, forest 

lands, pasture, land reclamation projects (e.g., strip 

mines and landfills), parks and home gardens. As 

the concentrations of heavy metals has dropped in 

municipal sludge, and as advanced sludge treatment 

methods are utilized, the public's acceptance of 

beneficial reuse projects has improved. However, 

improper land application of sludge/septage can 

cause significant odor nuisance, attract flies, contain 

high levels of pathogens and heavy metals, and be 

aesthetically offensive due to the presence of 

plastics.

Currently, regulation of sludge and septage 

management projects is under the jurisdiction of the 

Regional Board. Handling and disposal of 

sludge/septage can be regulated under Chapter 15 

of Title 23, California Code of Regulations and 

California Department of Toxic Substance Control 

Standards for hazardous waste management. If 

sludge is used beneficially, the project may be 

exempted from Chapter 15, but the Regional Board 

may issue waste discharge requirements.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 

EPA) has promulgated a policy of promoting those 

municipal sludge management practices that provide 

for the beneficial use of sludge and septage while 

maintaining or improving environmental quality and 

protecting public health. On February 19, 1993, the 

U.S. EPA published final sewage sludge regulations 

in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 503. The 503 

regulations are intended to assure that use and 

disposal of sewage sludges and septage comply 

with federal sludge use and disposal criteria 

developed by the U.S. EPA. The State Board or the 

California Integrated Waste Management Board may 

develop a State sludge management program 

consistent with the U.S. EPA's policy and criteria for 

land application, surface disposal, and incineration 

of sludge to seek federal authorization to implement 

the 40 Code of Federal Regulations 503 sludge 

regulations.

VI.K.3. MINING ACTIVITIES 

(NONFUEL COMMODITIES)

The Central Coast has had a rich and varied mining 

history. Currently extracted products include 

asbestos, decomposed granite, diatomite, dimension 

stone, dolomite, gypsum, limestone, sand and 

gravel, shale, specialty sand and stone. The 

hundreds of inactive metal mines and prospects 

appear to be the worst polluters though. Mercury, 

used partly to amalgamate gold ore, was mined from 

the Little Bonanza deposit, San Luis Obispo County, 

as early as 1862. The Buena Vista Mine, which 

ceased production in 1970 or 1971, is believed to 

have been the last mercury producer in the Central 

Coast Region. Chromite deposits have been mined 

in San Luis Obispo County since about 1870. By 

1944, and probably until the demise of production 

possibly 20 years ago, San Luis Obispo County 

produced more chromite than any other California 

county. Other products mined or prospected for 

historically include gold, silver, manganese, 
June 8, 2011 IV-40

magnesium, antimony, copper, nickel, iron, barite, 

coal, feldspar, gemstones, biotite, molybdenum, 

peat, phosphate, sodium sulfate, sulfur, titanium, 

uranium, zircon, and possibly platinum.

The extent of environmental degradation by all 

mining ventures is not yet known. Active operations 

are regulated individually pursuant to the California 

Code of Regulations, Chapter 15, the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, the California 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and/or the 

federal Clean Water Act (including the NPDES 

permit program). About 25 active mines currently 

hold Waste Discharge Requirements and/or NPDES 

surface water discharge permits and a few 

operations have been granted waivers. Chapter 15 

land disposal requirements are imposed as required.

Inactive operations with responsible parties fall 

under the same purview, as warranted. Inactive 

mines, with or without responsible parties (those 

without are considered abandoned) may be 

remediated as federal Superfund sites pursuant to 

federal Comprehensive, Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, or as State Board 

Cleanup and Abatement Account sites. Low interest 

loans or government or academic grants may, in 

rare cases, be applied to inactive mine remediation. 

Mines are subject to the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, although comprehensive regulations 

have not yet been written. If hazardous constituents 

are present, Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, Subtitle C, and California Code of Regulations 

Title 22 may apply to active and inactive sites.

VI.K.4. OTHER INDUSTRIAL 

ACTIVITIES

Cement Industry -- Concrete manufacturing 

operations generate two significant types of solid 

waste, kiln dust and "off-specification" concrete. The 

first, kiln dust, is classified as a designated waste 

under Title 22 and is typically disposed of in Class II 

or III landfills operated by the concrete 

manufacturers. The second waste, "off-spec" 

concrete, is generated in much greater quantities 

and, while classified as a hazardous waste due to its 

very high pH (often ranging from 12.5 to 13.5 pH 

units), is frequently dumped on-site at the concrete 

plants and spread.

Cement batch plants generate large quantities of 

liquid and semi-solid wastes from rinsing of cement 

trucks and/or cement covered equipment. This 

waste, referred to as "washout" is very alkaline (pH 

may be as high as 12.5 in fresh cement), is high in 

total dissolved solids, and may contain assorted 

heavy metals. Washout may also contain various 

air-entrainment additives or other chemicals.

The Regional Board regulates cement kiln dust 

disposal and all ready mix cement plants where 

water quality could be impacted. Wastewater from 

cement batch plants is considered to be a 

designated waste, and may need to be discharged 

to a lined impoundment, if site-specific 

characteristics (e.g., soil type, depth to ground 

water, ground water quality, etc.) will not protect 

ground water from degradation. The Regional 

Board will consider, on a case-by-case basis, the 

need to line cement wastewater ponds. Solid or 

semi-solid wastes should be deposited in landfills or 

other legal points of disposal unless the discharger 

can demonstrate the waste will not pose a threat to 

water quality if deposited onsite.

Asphalt production -- Asphalt batch plants generally 

involve mixing heavy long chain hydrocarbons with 

aggregates. Occasionally other hydrocarbon 

sources (diesel and gasoline contaminated soil) are 

mixed with asphalt as a beneficial reuse. Diesel fuel

and other solvents are used to clean equipment and 

as "lubricants" to prevent asphalt from sticking to 

equipment. Large quantities of these materials are 

generally stored on-site. Water quality can be 

significantly degraded if these materials reach water

courses. Waste control measures are fairly 

straightforward at such sites. Petroleum products 

should be stored in tanks, and the tanks placed in 

lined holding areas. If spillage to soil occurs, 

contaminated soils should be scraped up, stored on 

a liner, and incorporated into asphalt as soon as 

possible. A berm (or other runoff control) should be 

placed down gradient from earthen material 

stockpiles.

Oil Field Exploration and Production Facilities -- Oil 

exploration and production is a thriving business in 

the Central Coast Region. Although drilling muds 
June 8, 2011 IV-41

are exempt from Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, Oil Exploration and Production 

Operations are often subject to the requirements of 

Chapter 15 because they represent a threat to water 

quality. Due to the significant Chapter 15 workload, 

remote oil operations may not reach the top of the 

regulatory priority list. The Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission recently recommended:

"The review team recommends State Board obtain 

the resources necessary to fully discharge its 

responsibilities...seek adequate resources from the 

legislature or use some other mechanism to enable 

Regional Boards to process applications for WDRs 

in a timely manner...One option is to remove or raise 

the statutory cap on discharger fees so that State 

Board may restructure its fee system to improve its 

equity and cure substantial resource shortcomings."

The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission 

also commended the Central Coast Regional Board 

for having a road spreading policy. This policy, 

Resolutions No. 73-05 and 89-04, is located in the 

appendix.

VI.L. RESOURCE 

CONSERVATION RECOVERY 

ACT (SUBTITLE D)

Policy for Regulation of Discharges of Municipal 

Solid Waste

On June 17, 1993, the State Water Resources 

Control Board (State Board) adopted Resolution 93-

62, entitled Policy For Regulations Of Discharges Of 

Municipal Solid Waste. A copy of this policy is 

available in the appendix.

The Policy implements the State Board's regulations 

governing the discharge of waste to land, California 

Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 15 (23 

California Code of Regulations Section 2510 et seq., 

"Chapter 15"), and implements those water quality 

related portions of the federal regulations governing 

the discharge of municipal solid waste at landfills (40 

Code of Federal Regulations Section 258.1 et seq., 

"federal municipal solid waste regulations") that are 

not addressed by Chapter 15. The federal municipal 

solid waste regulations apply to all landfills that 

receive waste on or after October 9, 1991; the 

majority of the federal provisions become effective 

on October 9, 1993 (federal deadline).

The Policy directs Regional Boards to revise-or 

adopt, as appropriate-prior to the Federal Deadline, 

the waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for each 

landfill subject to the federal municipal solid waste 

regulations. The revised WDRs must implement 

those regulations in the manner described in the 

Policy and must implement the Chapter 15 

regulations as well.

Landfills are subject to Subtitle D in California 

beginning October 9, 1993 or October 9, 1995 

depending on landfill size and whether it is within 

one mile of a drinking water intake.

These federal regulations apply to municipal solid 

waste landfills (Class III landfills, under Chapter 15). 

The Subtitle D regulations outline the classification 

of municipal landfills, siting criteria, design criteria, 

operation procedures, water quality monitoring 

parameters and standards, closure and post-closure 

care requirements, and financial assurance 

guidelines similar to Chapter 15. U.S. EPA 

considers Subtitle D to be minimum standards for 

landfill operation. States may have equal or more 

stringent requirements, but may not have less 

stringent requirements. If a state's landfill regulation 

program meets U.S. EPA's approval, that state may 

apply to become an U.S. EPA "approved state" for 

landfill regulation.

California received Subtitle D approval in October 

1993 and will be able to consider engineering 

alternatives to certain provisions of Subtitle D.
June 8, 2011 IV-42

VI.M. SOLID WASTE WATER 

QUALITY ASSESSMENT TEST

In 1984, California Porter-Cologne Water Quality 

Control Act Section 13273 was adopted to require 

operators (and/or owners) of active and inactive 

solid waste disposal sites to perform a Solid Waste 

Assessment Test investigation. About 150 sites per 

year are to be analyzed statewide. The State Board 

has approved a statewide ranked list including 2,242 

sites in 15 ranks. It has prioritized all sites on the 

basis of the potential threat to water quality and has 

established schedules for Investigation Workplan 

(Workplan) and Solid Waste Assessment Test 

report's submittals. The Central Coast Region's 15 

ranks include 131 sites. Test reports are due the 

first day of July each year, depending on their 

ranking. Rank One sites were due July 1, 1987.

If monitoring information conclusively demonstrates 

hazardous waste is migrating, or has migrated to 

State waters, the site owner/operator may request a 

waiver of the Test reporting requirements pursuant 

to Water Code Section 13273(c). Waiver requests 

are usually requested within 120 days of the 

notification date. Water Code Section 13273.1 

allows the site operator to request an exemption 

from Test reporting requirements by submitting a 

Solid Waste Assessment Questionnaire. 

Questionnaires may be submitted if a site contains 

less than 50,000 cubic yards of waste and is not 

known nor suspected of containing hazardous 

substances, other than household hazardous 

wastes. Based on this Questionnaire, the Regional 

Board may exempt the Operator from all or part of 

the Solid Waste Assessment reporting requirements.

Solid Waste Assessment Test reports are required 

to contain:

1. An analysis of the surface and ground water on, 

under, and within one mile of the solid waste 

disposal site to provide a reliable indication 

whether there is any leakage of hazardous 

waste.

2. A chemical characterization of the soil-pore liquid 

in those areas which are likely to be affected if 

the solid waste disposal site is leaking, as 

compared to geologically similar areas near the 

solid waste disposal site which have been 

affected by leakage or waste discharge (PorterCologne §13273[b]).

3. A finding whether hazardous waste is leaching 

into surface or ground water on, under, and 

within one mile of the disposal site.

If hazardous waste has migrated, the Regional 

Board must notify the Department of Health Services 

and the Integrated Waste Management Board, and 

take appropriate remedial action (Porter-Cologne 

§13273[e]).

More than eighty percent of Test sites (mostly 

unlined) evaluated in all climates and geologic 

terrain in California have been found to impact 

ground water quality as part of the Solid Waste 

Assessment Test program.

From the beginning, the Test program was 

supported by the California General Fund. In recent 

years, agencies with programs with such funding 

have been under increasing pressure to find 

alternative funding or face elimination. These 

pressures resulted in the Test Program being 

understaffed and, in the summer of 1991, 

eliminated. At that time, almost 200 Test Reports 

had been accepted and reviewed by the Regional 

Water Boards. However, a backlog of nearly 300 

additional Test Reports had been submitted and had 

not been reviewed. The Central Coast Region had 

reviewed and accepted 29 reports, however 14 were 

backlogged.

In 1992, the Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 3348 

(Eastin) which allocated $2,500,000 from the 

Integrated Waste Management Board's "Solid 

Waste Disposal Site Cleanup and Maintenance 

Account" to the State and Regional Boards to fund 

the review of the above backlog. This law restricted 

these funds to the review of Solid Waste 

Assessment Reports from Ranks One through Five 

only and required the work be in accordance with a 

Memorandum of Understanding between the 

Regional Boards and the California Integrated 

Waste Management Board. This Memorandum of 

Understanding was signed by the Executive 

Directors of the two agencies in January 1993.
June 8, 2011 IV-43

VII. HAZARDOUS WASTE 

COMPLIANCE ISSUES

The Regional Board obtains information regarding 

hazardous waste discharge through two reporting 

programs. These programs are "Reportable 

Qualities of Hazardous Waste and Sewage 

Discharges" and the "Proposition 65" program. 

These mechanisms are discussed below:

VII.A. REPORTABLE 

QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS 

WASTE AND SEWAGE 

DISCHARGES

California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

Section 13271 requires the State Board and the 

Department of Health Services to adopt regulations 

establishing reportable quantities for substances 

listed as hazardous wastes or hazardous materials 

pursuant to Section 25140 of the Health and Safety 

Code. Reportable quantities are those which should 

be reported because they may pose a risk to public 

health or the environment if discharged to ground or 

surface water.

Similarly, the State Board was required to adopt 

regulations establishing reportable quantities for 

sewage. These requirements for reporting the 

discharge of sewage and hazardous materials do 

not supersede waste discharge requirements or 

water quality objectives.

The regulations for reportable quantities adopted by 

the State Board are included in Subchapter 9.2 of 

the California Code of Regulations.

VII.B. PROPOSITION 65

The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act 

of 1986 (Proposition 65) went into effect January 1, 

1987. Proposition 65 is found in the Health and 

Safety Code, Section 25249.5, et seq. It prohibits 

discharges of chemicals known to the State to cause 

cancer or reproductive toxicity to a potential source 

of drinking water, with certain exceptions. The 

Governor is required to publish a list of such 

chemicals. The list must be updated yearly. The 

current list is found in 22 California Code of 

Regulations, Section 12000.

Section 25180 of the Health and Safety Code 

requires designated governmental employees to 

disclose information to the local Board of 

Supervisors and local health officer regarding an 

illegal discharge of hazardous waste if the 

discharge is likely to cause substantial injury to the 

public. A designated employee is one who is 

required to sign a conflict of interest statement. Any 

designated employee who knowingly or intentionally 

fails to report information, as required by Proposition 

65, is subject to fines and imprisonment (Section 

25180.7). The following information should be 

reported:

Discharge type

How discharge was discovered

Location of discharge

Probable discharger

Possible contacts

Concentration of contaminant in soil and/or 

water.
June 8, 2011 IV-44

VIII. NONPOINT SOURCE 

MEASURES

The State Nonpoint Source Management Plan 

initiated development of specific program objectives 

to be implemented at the State and Regional level. 

Currently, Regional Board staff are implementing the 

following State Board program objectives:

A. Control of Nonpoint Source pollution (urban 

runoff; agriculture; land disturbance activities 

such as road construction/maintenance, land 

construction, timber harvesting, and mining; 

hydrologic modification; and individual disposal 

systems). These activities include outreach, 

education, public participation, technical 

assistance, financial assistance, interagency 

coordination, demonstration projects, and 

regulatory activities such as imposing septic 

tank area prohibitions.

B. Preparation of contracts for projects selected for 

grant funding. Regional Board staff also 

participate in these projects by providing 

technical assistance and publicizing their results.

C. Implementation of the 1990 Coastal Zone Act 

Reauthorization Amendments, as developed by 

the State Board and the California Coastal 

Commission. This shall be an enforceable 

Nonpoint Source Management Program to 

control land use and anthropomorphic activities 

impacts that have a significant affect on coastal 

waters. (Further discussion of the Amendments 

is provided later.)

D. Initiation of nonpoint source watershed pilot 

programs.

Using State program objectives, Regional Board 

staff developed task-specific workplans to address 

nonpoint sources of pollution. For the Central 

Coastal Region, the following tasks are managed 

and implemented by the Nonpoint Source Program 

staff:

Task 1: Water Quality Assessment

Regional Board staff reviewed and updated the 

nonpoint source portion of the Water Quality 

Assessment and prepared water body fact sheets. 

(The Water Quality Assessment and water body fact 

sheets are discussed in Chapter Six.)

Task 2: Watershed Studies/Planning

Three impaired watersheds (Morro Bay Watershed, 

San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, and San 

Lorenzo River Watershed) have been targeted for 

intensive activity. Major activities for San Luis 

Obispo Creek watershed include:

1. Develop a Demonstration "Total Maximum Daily 

Load" model.

2. Create a "San Luis Obispo Creek Riparian Task 

Force".

3. Implement a riparian corridor restoration project.

4. Identify major nonpoint pollutants and sources.

5. Develop a watershed management program.

For Morro Bay watershed, the activities include:

1. Develop a long term monitoring program to 

assess water quality improvements associated 

with the implementation of nonpoint source 

pollution control measures.

2. Develop funding for the long term monitoring 

program.

3. Implement a sediment reduction program using 

best management practices.

4. Participate in the Morro Bay Task Force.

For San Lorenzo River watershed, the activities 

include:

1. Develop a detailed assessment of Nonpoint 

Source impacts in the watershed.

2. Develop a wastewater management plan for 

on/off-site wastewater disposal.
June 8, 2011 IV-45

3. Develop of a nutrient objective for the river.

4. Conduct experimental on-site wastewater 

treatment to reduce nitrogen discharge into the 

environment.

Task 3: Outreach Program

Staff meets regularly with individuals and local 

government agencies to promote education and 

solutions on Nonpoint Source problems. 

Additionally, the use of grant and loan resources to 

correct Nonpoint Source problems is emphasized 

during outreach activities.

Specific outreach activities include participation on 

the San Luis Obispo Creek Riparian Task Force, 

Morro Bay Task Force, and various 

319(h)/205(j)/Basin Planning Technical Advisory 

Committees, and development of grant applications 

with local agencies.

Task 4: Project Tracking and Participation

Regional Board staff prepare contracts, coordinate 

with project proponents, track project progress, 

review and approve invoices, and provide technical 

support for Nonpoint Source grant funded projects.

VIII.A. COASTAL ZONE ACT 

REAUTHORIZATION 

AMENDMENTS

In November 1990, Congress enacted Section 6217 

of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 

Amendments to help address the problem of 

nonpoint source pollution in coastal waters. Section 

6217 requires that coastal states with federally 

approved coastal management programs develop 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. The 

legislative history indicates that the central purpose 

of section 6217 is to strengthen the links between 

federal and State coastal zone management and 

water quality programs in order to enhance efforts to 

manage land use activities that degrade coastal 

beneficial uses. The State coastal zone 

management 

agency designated under Section 306 of the 

Amendments and nonpoint source management 

agency designated under section 319 of the Clean 

Water Act will have a dual and co-equal role and 

responsibility in developing and implementing the 

coastal nonpoint program.

The program gives the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration joint 

authority to approve programs developed by the 

State to address 6217 requirements.

The State agencies chosen to develop California's 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program are the 

State Board and the Coastal Commission. The 

statute requires that the State program be 

"coordinated closely with State and local water 

quality plans and programs." This means that the 

State's nonpoint source programs under Sections 

208 and 319 of the Clean Water Act and the coastal 

program must be examined to determine if they 

comprehensively address land use activities and 

anthropomorphic effects that have a significant 

effect on coastal waters. In addition, the State 

agencies are charged with developing a coordinated 

program that:

identifies categories of nonpoint sources that 

adversely impact coastal waters;

describes management measures to be 

implemented;

identifies the land uses and critical coastal areas 

that will require more stringent or additional 

management measures;

describes the State-developed additional 

management measures to be implemented in 

critical areas;

documents the authorities the State will use to 

implement both the guidance and additional 

management measures, including designation of 

a lead agency for each source category and/or 

subcategory; and

sets forth a schedule to achieve full 

implementation of the guidance management

measures within three years of program approval 

by U.S. EPA and National Oceanic and 
June 8, 2011 IV-46

Atmospheric Administration, and full 

implementation of additional management 

measures within six years of program approval.

The Coastal Commission and the State Board staff 

have been working on a strategy to develop the 

required Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

plan. Recently, the State Board directed staff to 

review and revise the statewide Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan to include a strong coastal 

component. Revision of the Plan is intended to 

satisfy the requirements of Section 6217 within the 

existing framework of current nonpoint source 

activities. 

On a Regional Board level, staff has been involved 

with the statewide program since 1991. A pilot 

project, "The New Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 

Control Program using the Morro Bay Watershed as 

a Model" was performed to assess the feasibility of 

establishing the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Program in California. Regional Board staff supplied 

technical information and reviewed reports. 

Concerted planning and implementation efforts on 

target coastal watersheds such as Morro Bay will be 

major accomplishments to satisfy Coastal Nonpoint 

Pollution Control Program requirements. As the 

program goes statewide, Regional Board staff will 

attend technical advisory committee meetings and 

will work closely with staff of the State Board and 

other Regional Boards, as well as staff of other 

relevant local, State, and federal agencies to 

develop a workable Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 

Control Program.

Wastewater originating from nonpoint sources 

includes those from urban runoff, agricultural 

activities, on-site sewage disposal systems, and 

land disturbance activities. Management of these 

types of nonpoint source discharges are discussed 

in the following section. The Regional Board will be 

developing management practices for marinas and 

recreational boating; hydromodification facilities; and 

wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment 

systems at a future date.

VIII.B. URBAN RUNOFF 

MANAGEMENT

The effect of urban runoff on receiving water quality 

is a problem which has only recently come to be 

recognized. Most of the work up to the present has 

centered on characterizing urban runoff: 

concentrations of various constituents have been 

measured, attempts to relate these to such factors 

as land use type and rainfall intensity have been 

made, and studies concerning the amounts of these 

constituents present on street surfaces have been 

conducted. It appears that considerable quantities 

of contaminants, heavy metals in particular, may 

enter the receiving waters through urban runoff. The 

federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972 stress future "control of treatment of all point 

and nonpoint sources of pollution." Thus the federal 

government has concluded that nonpoint sources, 

such as urban runoff, are indeed deleterious to the 

aquatic environment and that measures should be 

taken to control such emissions.

There are four basic approaches to controlling 

pollution from urban runoff: (1) prevent contaminants 

from reaching urban land surfaces, (2) improve 

street cleaning and cleaning of other areas where 

contaminants may be present, (3) treat runoff prior to 

discharge to receiving waters, and (4) control land 

use and development. Which approach or 

combination of approaches is most effective or 

economical has not yet been studied extensively. 

Thus only the basic characteristics of each approach 

can be discussed. In addition to these direct 

approaches, measures to reduce the volume of 

runoff from urban areas are also available. 

VIII.B.1. SOURCE CONTROLS

The first approach, which emphasizes source 

control, has many aspects. Tough effective air 

pollution laws can probably aid in reducing the 

amount of certain materials deposited on the land. 

An obvious example is lead in automobile exhaust 

emissions. Effective anti-litter ordinances and 
June 8, 2011 IV-47

campaigns can aid in reducing floatable materials 

washed to surface waters. These materials are 

objectionable primarily from an aesthetics viewpoint, 

although water fowl can be affected by plastics. 

New construction techniques may reduce emissions 

to receiving waters. Erosion can be decreased by 

seeding, sodding, or matting excavated areas as 

quickly as practicable. Construction in certain critical 

areas can be limited to the dry season. Stockpiling 

of excavated material can be regulated to minimize 

erosion. Control of chlorinated hydrocarbon 

pesticide usage would reduce the amounts found on 

urban land surfaces and thus reduce the amounts 

washed to natural waters.

VIII.B.2. STREET CLEANING

The second approach to reducing pollution from 

urban runoff involves improving street cleaning 

techniques. Generally, street cleaning as presently 

practiced is intended to remove large pieces of litter 

which are aesthetically objectionable. The removal 

of fine material which may account for most of the 

important contaminants is minimal. It may be 

possible to design mechanical sweepers to remove 

a greater fraction of the fine material. Alternatively, 

vacuum-type street cleaners could produce better 

results.

In addition to streets, sidewalks and roofs contribute 

large amounts of runoff. Controlling contaminants 

present on these surfaces would be more difficult 

and would be up to individuals. Advertising 

campaigns would probably be unproductive and 

legislation would be unworkable except perhaps in 

specific, localized situations. Therefore, 

contaminant removal will probably be limited to 

street surfaces.

In many areas, streets are cleaned by flushing with 

water from a tank truck. If catch basins are present, 

this material may be trapped in them. If catch basins 

do not exist, the material will be simply washed to 

the storm sewers where subsequent rainfall will 

carry them to surface waters. Where catch basins 

are regularly cleaned out, they can be effective in 

removing materials during runoff. Where they are 

allowed to fill up with material, they add to the 

pollution loading during a storm by discharging 

septic material. In any case, catch basins usually 

exist in older urban areas and have a rather low 

efficiency in removing contaminants from storm 

water.

VIII.B.3. TREATMENT

The third approach to reducing the effects of urban 

runoff on receiving water quality involves collecting 

and treating the runoff. Physical or 

physical-chemical treatment would be required; the 

intermittent nature of storm flows precludes 

biological treatment. Examples of possible 

treatment processes are simple sedimentation, 

sedimentation with chemical clarification, and 

dissolved air flotation. In addition to cost, a principal 

problem with this approach is collection. Present 

storm sewerage systems generally drain to open 

creeks and rivers or directly to tidal waters. Even if 

treatment facilities were located at various sites in 

the Basin, a massive collection system would have 

to be built. 

The economic question of "treatment vs. transport" 

would have to be studied with specific regard to 

storm water runoff. Local sewage treatment plants 

abandoned in favor of regional facilities could 

possibly be utilized in such a program. One method 

of cutting down the peak flow capacity required is to 

provide storage volume in the collection system. 

Solutions to the problem of preventing water quality 

degradation by urban runoff are only in the earliest 

stages of development and consist mostly of 

plausible hypothesis on how to deal with the 

problem. Therefore, it is not possible at this time to 

present a definite plan with regard to this subject. It 

is probable that research and study which up to now 

has emphasized defining and characterizing the 

problem, will turn to developing methods of control. 

The federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972 state specifically that the EPA 

is authorized to conduct and assist studies "which 

will demonstrate a new or improved method of 

preventing, reducing, and eliminating the discharge 

into any waters of pollutants from sewers which 

carry storm water..." Considerable progress will be 

made during the next few years.
June 8, 2011 IV-48

Information should be collected and studied so that 

a workable plan can be implemented in the future.

VIII.B.4. CONTROL OF 

URBANIZATION

A fourth approach is to encourage controls on 

urbanization which will either reduce the volume of 

runoff or at least not cause runoff to increase as a 

result of urban growth. The usual pattern is that 

increased urbanization leads to higher runoff 

coefficients, reflecting the many impervious surfaces 

associated with development. Roof drains to storm 

sewers, paved parking lots and streets, installation 

of storm sewers, filling of natural recharge areas, 

and increased efficiency in realigned and resurfaced 

stream channels all are characteristics of urban 

growth. Development near streams and on steep 

slopes is deleterious to water resources; it is less 

disruptive to develop the lower portions of a 

watershed than the headwater areas, both from the 

standpoint of the length of channel affected and the 

extent of channel enlargement necessary to convey 

storm water. Use of porous pavements and less 

reliance on roof connections to storm drains and 

more emphasis on local recharge would reduce the 

peak volume of runoff from storms. Areal mass 

emissions of urban drainage constituents should be 

quantified. Urban planning should be more 

cognizant of land constraints to permit greater 

natural recharge where possible and feasible and to 

discourage intensive development of steep land 

particularly in headwater areas.

VIII.C. AGRICULTURAL 

WATER AND WASTEWATER 

MANAGEMENT

Agricultural wastewaters and the effect of 

agricultural operations are a result of land use 

practices; controls should ultimately be developed 

from land use plans. Controls are required to 

minimize adverse effects from agricultural practices. 

The following discussion is confined to 

recommended improvements in practices and to the 

scope of federal-state permit programs which will 

regulate certain agricultural activities. The 

discussion of practices is limited here to animal 

confinement and irrigation practices. Although 

Public Law 92-500 defines a confined animal 

operation as a point source, this plan presents it in 

the traditional manner of dispersed nonpoint 

sources. Pesticide use and limits on fertilizer 

applications are not specifically considered; these 

materials are covered by appropriate water quality 

objectives.

VIII.C.1. FEDERAL-STATE 

PERMITS GOVERNING 

AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS

Dischargers of wastes are managed in part by the 

NPDES permit program. Any person proposing to 

discharge waste that could affect the quality of the 

waters of the State must file a report of waste 

discharge with the appropriate regional board. The 

Regional Board will prescribe discharge 

requirements. The requirements implement water 

quality control plans and take into consideration 

beneficial uses to be protected.

Public Law 92-500 directed the Environmental 

Protection Agency to set up a permit system for all 

dischargers. Agriculture is specifically considered 

and permits are required for: 

1. Feed lots with 1,000 or more slaughter steers 

and heifers.

2. Dairies with 700 head or more, including milkers, 

pregnant heifers, and dry mature cows, but not 

calves.

3. Swine facilities with 2,500 or more swine 

weighing 55 pounds or more.

4. Sheep feedlots with 10,000 head or more.
June 8, 2011 IV-49

5. Turkey lots with 55,000 birds, unless the facilities 

are covered and dry.

6. Laying hens and broilers, with continuous flow 

watering, and 100,000 or more birds.

7. Laying hens and broilers, with liquid manure 

handling systems, and 30,000 or more birds.

8. Irrigation return flow from 3,000 or more 

continuous acres of land when conveyed to 

navigable waters from one or more point sources.

The law also provides that the State may administer 

its own permit program if EPA determines such 

program is adequate to carry out the objective of the 

Law. On March 26, 1973, this authority was 

transferred from the EPA to the State of California 

for waters within the State. Thus, the Regional 

Board issues discharge requirements to the 

agricultural operations covered under the 

aforementioned guidelines. The State may require 

discharge permits from any discharger, regardless of 

size.

VIII.C.2. ANIMAL CONFINEMENT 

OPERATIONS

Animal confinements such as feedlots and dairy 

corrals present a surface runoff problem during wet 

winter flows. Runoff water passes through hillside 

operations to sometimes contribute manure loads to 

the surface streams. Stockpiled manure may also 

add to the problem. Disposing of washwater and 

manures from dairies in such a manner that ground 

waters are not degraded can be a problem. Most 

dairies have some associated land for waste 

disposal. The land is devoted to crops and pasture 

and its assimilative capacity will depend upon the 

size, crop, crop yield, and the season. During 

intensive growth periods, crops can utilize more 

nutrients than in slow growth period. Small dairies 

with adequate crop land in close proximity may be 

able to use washwaters year round as a source of 

nutrients. Large dairies with smaller acreage will 

view the slurry wastes as a disposal problem, not a 

resource. Thus, there theoretically exists a 

threshold 

size for waste disposal. Regulations to achieve this 

size would be impractical and unenforceable. Crop 

land is expensive in the basin and would be difficult 

to acquire. However, a combination of crop patterns 

and pasture land best suited for each size operation 

should be determined and the dairymen should be 

encouraged to follow such a pattern. Where 

acreage is not available, mutually advantageous 

agreements between the dairymen and a neighbor 

cultivator could be formed for disposal of dairy 

wastes.

Sumps, holding ponds, and reservoirs holding 

manure wastes should be protected from flood 

flows. No pipes, drains or ditches from the milk barn 

should be allowed to drain in or near a stream 

channel.

Specific Regional Board policies pertaining to animal 

confinement operations can be found under "Control 

Actions" in Chapter Five.

VIII.C.3. IRRIGATION 

OPERATIONS - NEED FOR SALT 

MANAGEMENT

Salts originate by dissolution of the more soluble 

portions of rocks and soil particles in rain water 

(weathering). Such salts are transported in solution, 

but are concentrated in soils, waters, and so-called 

salt sinks due to evaporation from soil and water 

surfaces and transpiration (use) by crops (plants). 

This removal of water by evaporation or transpiration 

leaves salts behind. Salts are concentrated by each 

successive evaporative loss of water. In time, 

accumulations of salt can go from no- problem to 

extreme-problem levels unless some controls are 

applied.

For irrigated agriculture to continue production into 

the foreseeable future, this problem of gradual 

accumulation of salts in soils and waters must be 

faced and kept under control at acceptable levels. 

Otherwise, production will decline even under the 

best management, and no added amount of good 

management will be able to continue production of 

the quantities of food crops needed. In most of 

California's water basins, the rate of export or 

removal of salts from the basin will need to be 
June 8, 2011 IV-50

increased to more closely match or exceed the rate 

of salt accumulation. For each basin, not only do 

the rates of import and export of salts need to be in 

reasonably close balance, but the balance must also 

be maintained at a sufficiently low level of salinity to 

meet the quality demands of the various designated 

beneficial uses. This is often referred to as 

maintenance of a "favorable salt balance."

The rate of water quality degradation within a basin 

which results from inadequate salt exports is slow. It 

may be so slow that the need for control of salts is 

believed to be far into the future and of no concern 

to present planning. However, just as degradation 

may be a slow process, correction of a critical basinwide salinity problem is also an extremely slow 

process. Good planning, now, to control this longterm, slow degradation of our soil and water 

resources seems the better course of action, rather 

than to wait until the problem becomes critical. 

Decisions made, or not made, now can be critical to 

control in the future. 

Agriculture's need for salt management is both for 

on-farm management and for off-farm (basin-wide) 

management. The absolute need for discharge of 

salts by agriculture will create conflicts with other 

water users - even other agricultural water users.

Compromises and trade-offs will be necessary to 

reconcile these conflicts; however, necessary 

motivation for change in management at the farm 

level will need to be tied to dollars and the economic 

consequences of "no- change." If required 

agricultural management changes for essential 

pollution control result in added costs to the farmer, 

he has the same hard choices of any other 

businessman:

1. Absorb the cost with reduced profit

2. Pass on the cost in increased prices to 

consumers

3. Accept some form of public subsidy to off-set 

cost

4. Go out of business

5. Change crops grown

In coastal higher rainfall areas, irrigated agriculture 

could probably continue almost indefinitely, since 

irrigation would be used primarily during dry summer 

periods to supplement winter rainfall. Rainfall would 

be sufficient to flush salts through soils and provide 

adequate recharge and outflow from the 

underground water basin toward the ocean for salt 

control. There is more cause for concern in the drier 

inland areas such as the Salinas River Sub-basin 

and in the naturally mineralized ground water areas 

such as the Santa Maria Valley.

VIII.C.4. IMPROVED SALT 

MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

A concept of minimal degradation should be 

considered in some areas, but this will need to be 

coupled with management of the surface and ground 

water supplies to minimize and correct the effects of 

degradation that may occur. If complete correction 

is not possible, improved management will delay the 

time when salts reach critical levels. Several options 

available to correct degradation through improved 

salt management follow.

Improved irrigation efficiency would reduce both 

potential and actual pollutants in the water moving 

from surface to ground. Improved efficiency would 

also reduce total quantities of salts leaching to the 

water table and cut down on withdrawals or 

diversions from the limited water supply. Present 

statewide efficiency of water use may average 50 to 

60 percent, but individual uses will vary from an 

estimated low of 30 percent where water is plentiful 

and inexpensive to a high of 95 percent where water 

quantity is limited and/or the price is high. 

Implementation of the Leaching Requirement 

reported by U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, will 

help improve efficiency of irrigation. Other research 

data by this same laboratory has been reported on 

the effects of low leaching fractions in reduction of 

salt loads leaching to water tables. The new data 

offers real incentives to agriculture to improve 

irrigation efficiency in the form of real dollars saved 

by the farmer. Real water saved by agriculture can 

then be used for dilution, recharge, or 

nonagricultural uses. True, the salts moving to the 

water table under these low leaching fractions will be 

more concentrated, but due to low solubilities of 
June 8, 2011 IV-51

certain salts, a progressive precipitation and removal 

from solution occurs as the salt concentration in the 

percolating soil solution rises. As the concentration 

rises, considerable portions of the low solubility salts 

come out of solution, e.g., the relatively insoluble 

lime, dolomite, and slightly soluble gypsum. 

With these low leaching fractions, salt load to the 

underground may be reduced as much as 50 

percent in some cases. Sodium salts (sodium 

chloride, and sulfate) are not affected, so in relation 

to calcium and magnesium salts these sodium salts 

in the percolating waters increase. The compounds 

which precipitate are deposited in the lower root 

zone or below and cause no problem to agriculture 

except for a few specialized situations which are 

correctable (lime induced chlorosis). The increased 

proportions of sodium salts (higher SAR) will not 

reduce permeabilities of subsoils since salinity 

remains high enough to continue normal 

permeabilities of subsoils. The higher sodium (SAR) 

reaching water tables may reduce hardness slightly, 

but is not expected to be a problem to users of the 

underground waters.

Crop production can continue into the foreseeable 

future in the low rainfall areas if the minimal 

degradation that almost inevitably will occur is offset 

(a) by recharge and replenishment of the 

underground which will furnish dilution water for the 

added salts and (b) by drainage or removal of 

degraded waters at a sufficient rate to maintain low 

salt levels and achieve a satisfactory balance 

between salts coming into the basin and salts 

leaving the basin. 

To help in recharge and dilution, additional winter 

runoff can be stored in surface reservoirs for later 

use for either surface stream or underground water 

quantity/quality enhancement or maintenance, e.g., 

Nacimiento and Twitchell reservoirs. Possible future 

reservoirs may be located on the Arroyo Seco and 

Carmel rivers. Or winter runoff could be used 

directly for ground water recharge to enhance 

flushing and flow-through dilution of salts and 

pollutants. 

Drainage wells which discharge to drains leading to 

salt sinks are a possibility in removing salty waters, 

but these have had only limited success in draining 

high water table areas. However, they might be well 

adapted to ground water quality maintenance. Such 

wells could be drilled and operated to recover the 

salty top layers of water tables where salts are 

believed to accumulate as a layer of poorer quality 

water over the better quality deeper layers. Since 

most of the movement within water tables is thought 

to be horizontal and down slope, and vertical mixing 

is relatively slow, the possibility of recovering 

polluted upper layers of water tables should be 

explored as a quality maintenance tool or 

rejuvenation procedure for degraded water supplies. 

Underdrains (tile systems) can aid in both water and 

salt management. Perched water tables intercept 

percolating salts, nutrients, and other pollutants and 

offer real possibilities as an aid in management and 

protection of the overall water quality of a basin. A 

"perched" water table is held up and separated from 

deeper aquifers by a relatively impermeable barrier 

(soil, rock, hardpan). This barrier often protects the 

deeper waters from pollution by preventing leakage 

of polluted waters from above. Perched water tables 

exist in portions of several basins. Salts and 

nutrients collected in these perched water tables 

may be tapped by underdrains (tile systems) and 

transported through the basin drainage system to 

disposal sites.

Basin-wide or area-wide drainage systems will be 

needed in order to move unusable wastewaters to 

acceptable temporary or permanent disposal sites 

(salt sinks). On- farm drainage problems will 

normally be solved at individual farmer expense 

because of the economics involved--the cost is not 

prohibitive and the costs of "not-solving" the problem 

(reduced yields, changing cropping patterns, or 

going out of business) are unacceptable. The offfarm part of drainage, however, is too big for 

individual farmers to solve, and some form of 

collective, organized large scale action is needed. 

The off- farm problems include collection of 

discharges, rights-of-way for conveyance, building 

and maintenance of a drainage system, disposal site 

acquisition, and management for compliance with 

discharge requirements.

Acceptable temporary or permanent salt disposal 

sites (salt sinks) must be designated and used. The 

Pacific Ocean is the only acceptable sink for most of 

the Central Coastal Basin; however, Soda Lake and 

certain highly mineralized ground water basins may 

be acceptable. To be able to remove salts as 

required to maintain a low salinity level in any one 

basin, there must be some other basin or site that 

will accept the salts. These acceptor areas are 
June 8, 2011 IV-52

known as salt sinks. Without acceptable salt sinks, 

salt management becomes a long-term losing battle 

and a frustrating exercise in futility.

Other salt inputs to a basin can be reduced by 

improved management of other salt sources such as 

fertilizer, animal wastes, and soil amendments. 

Regulation may be required but an appreciable 

improvement can be expected by education of 

farmers to better understand and better utilize 

existing information and guidelines. A salt routing 

approach could be used in areas such as Pancho 

Rico Creek to permit discharge of highly mineralized 

wastewater during periods of high flow.

VIII.C.5. MUSHROOM FARM 

OPERATIONS

Mushroom farm operations present surface or 

ground water problems if not properly managed.

VIII.C.5.a. TYPICAL MUSHROOM FARM 

OPERATION

Compost is needed as a growing base medium to 

produce mushrooms. Typically compost is produced 

on-site from straw, horse manure, cottonseed meal, 

or other organic matter. During composting, the 

organic material breaks down into a useable protein 

source for mushrooms. Water, added to assist the 

composting process, is constantly leaching through 

compost piles. Once compost is ready for use, it is 

placed in mushroom growing trays. After mushroom 

harvesting, steaming and fumigation sterilize the 

growing house and spent compost. Spent compost 

is then removed to "spent compost storage areas" 

and marketed as a soil additive or disposed of in 

some other manner.

VIII.C.5.b. TYPES OF WASTES 

DISCHARGED

Composting operations are typically carried out on 

concrete composting slabs. Compost is frequently 

sprayed with water. Excess water typically drains 

into a sump. Normally, excess water is recycled by 

pumping it back to spray the pile. In summer very 

little runoff or leachate is produced from composting. 

During the rainy season the sump collects more 

runoff from the compost slab than is recycled. 

Discharge to drainage ways or containment sumps 

may result. 

When mushroom beds are irrigated, excess water 

drains from concrete floors to drainage ways or 

disposal sumps. This water contains peat moss, 

soluble substances from beds, salt from salt pans 

(used to "sanitize" the footwear of persons entering 

the cultivating room), and whatever is on the floor, 

such as pesticide residues and mushroom stems, at 

the time the floor is washed. 

Steam is used for tray sterilization and to heat and 

sterilize growing houses. Prior to entering boilers, 

water is softened and treated with an organic or 

inorganic corrosion and scale inhibitors. Salt is used 

as a water softener regenerant. Discharge of water 

softener regenerant and boiler blowdown to 

drainage ways or disposal sumps may occur.

Solid wastes consisting of pesticide bags, 

mushroom roots and stumps, cardboard boxes, 

spent compost, and general debris are generated by 

mushroom farms.

Some of the disinfectants, fungicides, and pesticides 

being sprayed on the floor, walls, and mushrooms 

are occasionally washed off during washdown of the 

facility. Generally, pesticides used in this business 

have a relatively short life.

VIII.C.5.c. POSSIBLE WATER QUALITY 

PROBLEMS

Compost leachate and irrigation/ washwater is high 

in biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). BOD is 
June 8, 2011 IV-53

generally considered high if the concentration 

exceeds 30 mg/l, but this can vary from situation to 

situation. If discharged to surface waters, these 

wastes may depress dissolved oxygen to a critical 

level, and provide a nutrient source for undesirable 

aquatic growth. Improper disposal may also cause 

impacts on ground water. Nitrates are a particular 

concern. 

Discharges of water softener regenerant and boiler 

blowdown may degrade surface and ground waters 

if improperly disposed. These wastes are high in 

Total Dissolved Solids, Sodium, and Chloride 

concentrations. Boiler blow-down may also contain 

organic or inorganic corrosion and scale inhibitors 

which could present toxicity problems if improperly 

disposed. Solid wastes can be a problem if 

improperly disposed. 

Disinfectants, fungicides, and pesticides do not 

appear to present water quality problems based on 

inspections and limited sampling. These biocides 

can be a problem if handled improperly. Surface 

water runoff entering mushroom farm operations can 

become contaminated if runoff contacts any of the 

sources described above. 

VIII.C.5.d. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

Wastes can create a nuisance. Public health can be 

jeopardized if vectors develop among solid wastes. 

Further, odors resulting from storage of wastes can 

become offensive and may obstruct the free use of 

neighboring property.

VIII.C.5.e. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Spent irrigation/washwater and compost leachate 

may be reused to spray compost piles.

2. Spent irrigation/washwater, compost leachate, 

and contaminated surface water runoff should be 

collected for treatment, storage, and disposal in 

lined ponds, unless shown by geohydrologic 

analysis that ground water will 

not be affected. If needed, aeration should be 

provided to stabilize organic substances and 

prevent odor problems. Dissolved oxygen of 1.0 

mg/l or more is recommended for storage ponds. 

3. Mushroom farm wastes, excluding water softener 

regenerant, may be used to irrigate farm crops 

during dry weather months. When salt is 

properly handled, the sodium and chloride 

content of these waters should be suitable for this 

purpose. The discharger must demonstrate to 

the Regional Board that irrigation water will not 

degrade beneficial water uses.

4. When irrigation is utilized, application rates and 

irrigation practices should be suitable to the crops 

irrigated. 

5. Water softener regenerant and boiler blowdown 

should be disposed of separately from spent 

irrigation/washwater. Since its volume is small 

and concentration of pollutants is high, it is best 

to evaporate the liquid on a lined drying bed, or 

provide a documented test by a registered 

Engineer or laboratory that the soils permeability 

in the disposal area is 10-6 cm/sec or less. Two 

drying beds should be used for the purpose of 

holding salt/regenerant liquid and boiler 

blowdown waste. Discharges to beds are 

alternated to allow sufficient drying time. 

6. Drying bed residue from any disposal pond 

should be disposed at a suitable solid waste 

disposal site. 

7. As an alternative, water softener regenerant and 

boiler blowdown can be hauled in liquid form to a 

suitable disposal site, or discharged to the ocean 

through a suitable outfall. 

8. Chemical alternatives for sanitizing footwear to 

replace salt pans should be investigated by farm 

operators.

9. If used, salt sanitation pans should be at least 

4 inches deep and elevated to prevent contact 

between salt and water. Salt solution should 

remain in pans until disposed. Spent salt 
June 8, 2011 IV-54

should be dumped into a sealed container and 

disposed at a suitable site. 

10. Solid waste should be routinely collected and 

disposed at a suitable site.

VIII.C.5.f. PROHIBITIONS

The following activities are prohibited at mushroom 

farms:

1. Discharge of inadequately treated waste, 

including leachate, high BOD, high nutrient 

waste, and contaminated surface water runoff to 

drainage ways, surface waters, and ground 

waters.

2. Discharge of untreated water softener regenerant 

and boiler blowdown waste in a manner that 

pollutes any non-saline surface or ground water.

3. Discharge and/or storage of waste, including 

spent compost, in a manner promoting nuisance 

and vector development.

4. Disposal of sludges, salt residues, pesticide 

residues, and solid waste in a manner not 

accepted by the Regional Board.

VIII.C.6. RANGE MANAGEMENT

Rangeland is the most extensive land use type in 

California, accounting for more than 40 million acres 

of the State's 101 million acres. As most of the 

rangelands are located between forested areas and 

major river systems, nearly all surface waters in the 

State flow through rangelands. Thus, rangeland 

activities can greatly impact water quality. In this 

section, grazing activities are discussed.

VIII.C.6.a. GRAZING

Grazing activities (particularly overgrazing), by 

contributing excessive sediment, nutrients, and 

pathogens, can adversely impact water quality and 

impair beneficial uses. Soil erosion and 

sedimentation are the primary causes of lowered 

water quality from rangelands. When grazing 

removes most of the vegetative cover from pastures 

and rangelands, the soil surface is exposed to 

erosion from wind and water. With runoff, eroded 

soil becomes sediment which can impair stream 

uses and alter stream channel morphology and 

results in decreased recharge capacity through 

clogging of channel bottoms. With steep slopes, 

highly erodible soils and interim storm events, the 

sediment delivery ratio (a measure of the amount of 

eroded soil delivery to a waterbody) on rangeland 

can be very high. Streambank erosion and 

lakeshore erosion are other sources of sediment on 

rangelands. Lakeshores, streambanks, and 

associated riparian zones are often subjected to 

heavy livestock use. Trampling and grazing of 

vegetation contribute to lakeshore and streamside 

instability as well as accelerated erosion.

Sediments can contribute large amounts of nutrients 

to surface water. Nutrients, mainly nitrogen and 

phosphorous, from manure and decaying vegetation 

also enter surface waters, particularly during runoff 

periods. Very critical nutrient problems can develop 

where livestock congregate for water, feed, salt, and 

shade. Pasture fertilization can also be a source of 

nutrients to surface waters, as well as a source of 

pesticides, particularly if flood irrigation techniques 

are used on rangelands.

Stream zone and lakeshore areas are important for 

water quality protection in that they can "buffer" 

(intercept and store nutrients which have entered 

surface and ground waters from upgradient areas). 

These "buffer zones" are more sensitive to 

processes which can increase nutrient discharges 

such as soil compaction, soil erosion, and vegetation 

damage than other areas of the rangeland.

Localized contamination by pathogens that could 

impact human health in surface water, ground water, 

and soils can result from livestock in pastures and 

rangelands. Rangeland streams can show 
June 8, 2011 IV-55

increased coliform bacterial levels with fecal coliform 

levels tending to increase as intensity of livestock 

use increases. Fecal coliform serve as indicators 

that pathogens could exist and flourish. The extent 

of contamination is usually determined by livestock 

density, sizing, and frequency of grazing, and 

access to the surface waters.

GRAZING CONTROL MEASURES

Grazing activities occur on both public and private 

lands in the Central Coast Region. Regulation of 

grazing on federal lands differs from that on private 

lands.

Federal lands -- Grazing activities on federal lands 

are regulated by the responsible land management 

agency, such as the U. S. Bureau of Land 

Management or the U.S. Forest Service. Through 

Memorandum of Understandings and Management 

Agency Agreements, the Regional Board recognizes 

the water quality authority of the U.S. Forest Service 

and U.S. Bureau of Land Management in range 

management activities on federal lands. Both these 

agencies require allotment management plans to be 

prepared for a specific area and for an individual 

permittee. The Regional Board relies on the water 

quality expertise of these agencies to include 

appropriate water quality measures in the allotment 

management plans. Most allotment management 

plans include specific Best Management Practices to 

protect water quality and existing and potential 

beneficial uses.

Non-federal (private) lands -- The Range 

Management Advisory Committee is a statutory 

committee which advises the California Board of 

Forestry on rangeland resources. The Committee 

has identified water quality protection as a major 

rangeland issue and has assumed a lead role in 

developing a Water Quality Management Plan for 

private rangelands in California. Regional Board 

staff is participating in the Plan's development. 

Sections proposed for inclusion in the Plan are 

status of water quality and soil stability on State 

rangelands, authority, mandates, and programs for 

water quality and watershed protection, local water 

quality planning guidelines, sources of assistance, 

development of management measures (Best 

Management Practices), State agency water quality 

responsibilities, and monitoring guidelines. Upon its 

completion, the Plan will be submitted to the State 

Board. On private lands whose owners request 

assistance, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, in 

cooperation with the local Resource Conservation 

Districts, can provide technical and financial 

assistance for range and water quality improvement 

projects. A Memorandum of Understanding is in 

place between the U.S. Soil Conservation Service 

and the State Board for planning and technical 

assistance related to water quality actions and 

activities undertaken to resolve nonpoint source 

problems on private lands.

On both public and private lands, the Regional 

Board encourages grazing strategies that maintain 

adequate vegetative cover to reduce erosion and 

sedimentation. The Regional Board promotes 

dispersal of livestock away from surface waters as 

an effective means of reducing nutrient and 

pathogen loading. The Regional Board encourages 

use of Best Management Practices to improve water 

quality, protect beneficial uses, protect stream zone 

and lakeshore areas, and improve range and 

watershed conditions including:

Implementing rest-rotation grazing strategies,

Changing the season of use (on/off dates),

Limiting the number of animals,

Increasing the use of range riders to improve 

animal distribution and use of forage,

Fencing to exclude grazing in sensitive areas,

Developing non-lakeshore and non-stream zone 

watering sites,

Constructing physical improvement projects 

such as check dams, and

Restoring riparian habitat.

These same Best Management Practices may result 

in improved range and increased forage production, 

resulting in increased economic benefit to the 

rancher and land owner. The Regional Board also 

encourages land owners to develop appropriate sitespecific Best Management Practices using the 
June 8, 2011 IV-56

technical assistance of the U.S. Soil Conservation 

Service and the U.S. EPA.

In addition to relying on the grazing management 

expertise of agencies such as the U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or 

Range Management Advisory Committee, the 

Regional Board can directly regulate grazing 

activities to protect water quality. Actions available 

to the Regional Board include:

1. Require that a Report of Waste Discharge be 

filed, that allotment management plans for 

specific federal lands be prepared, or that a 

Coordinated Resource Management Plan be 

adopted within one year of problem 

documentation. Such problems indicate 

impairment of beneficial uses or violation or 

threatened violation of water quality objectives.

2. Require that all allotment management plans 

(utilized for federal lands) and Coastal Resource 

Management Plans contain Best Management 

Practices necessary to correct existing water 

quality problems or to protect water quality so as 

to meet all applicable beneficial uses and water 

quality objectives contained in Chapters Two and 

Three, respectively, of this Basin Plan. 

Corrective measures would have to be 

implemented within one year of submittal of the 

allotment management plan or Coastal Resource 

Management Plan, except where staged Best 

Management Practices are appropriate. 

Implementation of a staged Best Management 

Practice must commence within one year of 

submittal of the allotment management plan or 

Coastal Resource Management Plan.

3. Require that each allotment management plan 

(utilized for federal lands) or Coastal Resource 

Management Plan include specific objectives, 

actions, and monitoring and evaluation 

procedures. The discussion of actions must 

establish the seasons of use, number of livestock 

permitted, grazing system(s) to be used, a 

schedule for rehabilitation of ranges in 

unsatisfactory condition, a schedule for initiating 

range improvements, and a schedule for 

maintenance of range improvements must 

include priorities and planned completion 

dates. The discussion of monitoring and 

evaluation must propose a method and timetable 

for reporting of livestock forage conditions, 

watershed condition, and surface and ground 

water quality.

4. Require that all allotment management plans and 

Coastal Resource Management Plans be 

circulated to interested parties, organizations, 

and public agencies.

5. Consider adoption of waste discharge 

requirements if an allotment management plan or 

Coastal Resource Management Plan is not 

prepared or if the Executive Officer and the 

landowner do not agree on Best Management 

Practices proposed in an allotment management 

plan or Coastal Resource Management Plan.

6. Decide that allotment management plans and 

Coastal Resource Management Plans prepared 

to address a documented watershed or water 

quality problem may be accepted by the Regional 

Board's Executive Officer in lieu of adoption of 

Waste Discharge Requirements.

7. Oversee monitoring of water quality variables and 

beneficial uses. Provide data interpretation.

8. Encourage the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, Resource 

Conservation District, and private landowners to 

develop watering sites for livestock away from 

Lake shores, stream zones, and riparian areas.

9. Encourage private landowners to request 

technical and financial assistance from U.S. Soil 

Conservation Service, in cooperation with the 

local Resource Conservation Districts, in the 

preparation of allotment management plans and 

the implementation or construction of grazing and 

water quality improvements.

10. Continue to coordinate with the Range 

Management Advisory Committee in the 

development of a water quality management plan 

for private rangelands.
June 8, 2011 IV-57

VIII.D. INDIVIDUAL, 

ALTERNATIVE, AND 

COMMUNITY DISPOSAL 

SYSTEMS

On-site sewage disposal systems and other similar 

methods for liquid waste disposal are sometimes 

viewed as interim solutions in urbanizing areas, yet 

may be required to function for many years. On-site 

systems can be a viable long-term waste disposal 

method with proper siting, design, construction, and 

management. In establishing on- site system 

regulations, agencies must consider such systems 

as permanent, not interim systems to be replaced by 

public sewers. The reliability of these systems is 

highly dependent on land and soil constraints, 

proper design, proper construction, and proper 

operation and maintenance.

If on-site sewage treatment facilities are not carefully 

managed, problems can occur, including:

odors or nuisance;

surfacing effluent;

disease transmission; and,

pollution of surface and ground waters.

Odors and nuisance can be objectionable and 

annoying and may obstruct free use of property. 

Surfacing effluent (effluent which fails to percolate 

and rises to the ground surface) can be an 

annoyance, or health hazard to the resident and 

neighbors. In some cases, nearby surface waters 

may be polluted. 

On-site sewage disposal systems are a potential 

mechanism for disease transmission. Sewage is 

capable of transmitting diseases from organisms 

which are discharged by an infected individual. 

These include dysentery, hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, 

and gastro-intestinal disorders. 

Pollution of surface or ground waters can result from 

the discharge of on-site system wastes. Typical 

problem waste constituents are total dissolved 

solids, phosphates, nitrates, heavy metals, bacteria, 

and viruses. Discharge of these wastes will, in some 

cases, destroy beneficial surface and ground water 

uses. 

Subsurface disposal systems may be used to 

dispose of wastewater from: (1) individual 

residences; (2) multi-unit residences; (3) institutions 

or places of commerce; (4) industrial sanitary 

sources; and, (5) small communities. All individual 

and multi- unit residential developments are subject 

to criteria in this section of the Basin Plan. 

Commercial, institutional, and industrial 

developments with a discharge flow rate less than 

2500 gallons per day generally are not regulated by 

waste discharge requirements; therefore, they must 

comply with these criteria. Community systems 

must also comply with criteria relating to this subject 

within the Basin Plan. Community systems are 

defined for the purposes of this Basin Plan as: (1) 

residential wastewater treatment systems for more 

than 5 units or more than 5 parcels; or, 

(2) commercial, institutional or industrial systems to 

treat sanitary wastewater equal to or greater than 

2500 gallons per day (average daily flow). Systems 

of this type and size may be subject to waste 

discharge requirements.

Alternatives to conventional on-site system designs 

have been used when site constraints prevent the 

use of conventional systems. Examples of 

alternative systems include mound and 

evapotranspiration systems. Remote subdivisions, 

commercial centers, or industries may utilize 

conventional collection systems with community 

treatment systems and subsurface disposal fields 

for sanitary wastes. Alternative and community 

systems can pose serious water quality problems if 

improperly managed. Failures have been common 

in the past and are usually attributed to the following:

Systems are inadequately or improperly sited, 

designed, or constructed.

Long-term use is not considered.

Inadequate operation and maintenance.
June 8, 2011 IV-58

VIII.D.1. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

FOR EXISTING SYSTEMS

Individual disposal systems can be regulated with

relative ease when they are proposed for a particular 

site. For new systems, regulations generally provide 

for good design and construction practices. A more 

troublesome problem is presented by older septic 

tank systems where design and construction may 

have been less strictly controlled or where land 

development has intensified to an extent that 

percolation systems are too close together and there 

is no room left for replacement leaching areas. 

Where this situation develops to an extent that 

public health hazards and nuisance conditions 

develop, the most effective remedy is usually a 

sewer system. Where soil percolation rates are 

particularly fast, ground water degradation is 

possible, particularly increases in nitrate 

concentrations.

Sewer system planning should be emphasized in 

urbanizing areas served by septic tanks. A first step 

would be a monitoring system involving surface and 

ground waters to determine whether problems are 

developing. Where septic tank systems in urbanized 

areas are not scheduled for replacement by sewers 

and where public health hazards are not 

documented, septic tank maintenance procedures 

are encouraged to lessen the probability that a few 

major failures might force sewering of an area which 

otherwise could be retained on individual systems 

without compromising water quality. Often a few 

systems will fail in an area where more frequent 

septic tank pumping, corrections to plumbing or 

leach fields, or in-home water conservation 

measures could help prevent failure. Improvements 

of this kind should be enforced by a local septic tank 

maintenance district or local governing jurisdiction.

A septic tank subjected to greater hydraulic load can 

fail due to washout of solids into percolation areas 

and plugging of the infiltrative surface. In some 

cases, excess wash water could be diverted to 

separate percolation areas by in-home plumbing 

changes. Dishwashers, garbage grinders, and 

washing machines could be eliminated. Water 

saving toilets, faucets, and shower heads are 

available to encourage low water use. Water use 

costs may also be structured to encourage more 

frugal use of water.

VIII.D.2. LOCAL GOVERNING 

JURISDICTION ACTIONS

VIII.D.2.a. DISCLOSURE AND 

COMPLIANCE OF EXISTING 

WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM

Local governing jurisdictions should provide 

programs to assure conformance with this Basin 

Plan and local regulations. Inspection programs 

should assure site suitability tests are performed as 

necessary, and that tests are in accordance with 

standard procedures. Inspection should also assure 

proper system installation. Proper design and 

construction should be certified by the inspector. 

Concerned homeowners can be a tremendous asset 

in assuring proper construction. When a septic 

system permit is issued by the local agency, a 

handout specifying proper construction techniques 

should be made available to the general public. 

Systems must be inspected by the local agency 

before covering (backfilling).

Local agencies can use either staff inspectors or 

individuals under contract with the local government. 

Either way, a standard detailed checklist should be 

completed by the inspector to certify compliance.

Site suitability determinations should specify: (1) 

whether approval is for the entire lot or for specific 

locations of the lot; (2) if further tests are necessary; 

and, (3) if alternatives are necessary or available.

Where agency approval is necessary from various 

departments, final sign-offs should be on the same 

set of plans.

Home owners should be aware of the nature and

requirements of their wastewater disposal system. 

Plans should be available in city or county offices 

showing placement of soil absorption systems. 

Since this is only feasible for new construction, local 

agencies should require septic system as-built plans 
June 8, 2011 IV-59

as a condition of new construction final inspection. 

Plans would be kept on file for future use of property 

owners.

Prospective property buyers should be informed of 

any enforcement action affecting parcels or houses 

they wish to buy. For example, a parcel in a 

discharge prohibition area may be unbuildable for an 

indefinite period, or a developed parcel may be 

subject to significant user charges from a future 

sewer system. Local agencies should have 

prohibition area terms entered into the county record 

for each affected parcel. When a prospective buyer 

conducts a title search, terms of the prohibition 

would appear in the preliminary title report.

Dual leaching capabilities provide an immediate 

remedy in the event of system failure. For that 

reason, dual leachfields are considered appropriate 

for all systems. Furthermore, should wastewater 

flows increase, this area can be used until the 

system is expanded. But system expansion may not 

be possible if land is not set aside for this purpose. 

For these reasons, dedicated system expansion 

areas are also appropriate.

To protect this set-aside area from encroachment, 

the local agency should require restrictions on future 

use of the area as a condition of land division or 

building permit approval. For new subdivisions, 

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 

might provide an appropriate mechanism for 

protecting a set aside area. Future buyers of 

affected property would be notified of property use 

restrictions by reading CC&R's.

All on-site system owners need to be aware of 

proper operation and maintenance procedures. 

Local governing jurisdictions should mount a 

continuing public education program to provide 

home owners with on-site system operation and 

maintenance guidelines. Basin Plan information 

should be available at local agency health and 

building departments.

Local agencies should conduct an on-site system 

inspection program, particularly in areas where 

system failures are common or where systems with 

poor soils are approved. An agency inspector 

should periodically check each septic tank for 

pumping need and each system for proper 

operation. Homeowners should be alerted where 

evidence of system failure 

exists. Where nuisance or a potential public health 

hazard exists, a followup procedure should insure 

the situation is corrected. On-site systems should 

be constructed in a location that facilitates system 

inspection.

Another approach is periodically to mail 

homeowners a brochure reminding them how to 

maintain and inspect their on-site system. 

Homeowners should be notified that they should 

periodically check their septic tank for pumping 

need. Homeowners should also be notified of other 

problems indicative of system failure. Some 

examples include wet spots in drainfield area, lush 

grass growths, slowly draining wastewater, and 

sewage odors. 

Many existing systems do not comply with current or 

proposed standards. Repairs to failing systems 

should be done under permit from the local agency. 

To the extent practicable, the local agency should 

require failing systems to be brought into compliance 

with Basin Plan recommendations. This could be a 

condition of granting a permit for repairs. 

Land use changes on properties used for 

commerce, small institutions, or industries should 

not be approved by the local agency until the 

existing on-site system meets criteria of this Basin 

Plan and local ordinances. A land use permit or 

business license could be used to alert the local 

agency of land use changes.

VIII.D.2.b. ON-SITE WASTEWATER

MANAGEMENT PLANS

On-site wastewater management should be 

implemented in urbanizing areas to investigate longterm cumulative impacts resulting from continued 

use of individual, alternative, and community on-site 

disposal systems. A wastewater disposal study 

should be conducted to determine the best 

Wastewater Management Plan that would provide 

site or basin specific wastewater re-use. This study 

should identify basin specific criteria to prevent 

water quality degradation and public health hazards 

and provide an evaluation of the effects of existing 

and proposed developments and changes in land 

use. These plans should be a comprehensive 

planning tool to specify on-site disposal system 

limitations to prevent ground or surface water 
June 8, 2011 IV-60

degradation. Wastewater management plans 

should:

Contain a ground/surface water monitoring 

program.

Identify sites suitable for conventional septic 

systems.

Project on-site disposal system demand.

Determine sites and methods to best meet 

demand.

Project maximum population densities for each 

subdrainage basin to control degradation or 

contamination of ground or surface water.

Recommend establishment of septic tank 

maintenance districts, as needed.

Identify alternate means of disposing of sewage 

in the event of irreversible degradation from 

on-site disposal systems.

For areas where watershed-wide plans are not 

developed, conditions could be placed on new 

divisions of land or community systems to provide 

monitoring data or geologic information to contribute 

to the development of a Wastewater Management 

Plan. 

Wastewater disposal alternatives should identify 

costs to each homeowner. A cost-effectiveness 

analysis, which considers socio-economic impacts of 

alternative plans, should be used to select the 

recommended plan. 

On-site wastewater disposal zones, as discussed in 

Section 6950-6981 of the Health and Safety Code, 

may be an appropriate means of implementing onsite Wastewater Management Plans.

On-site Wastewater Management Plans shall be 

approved by the Regional Board.

VIII.D.2.c. SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE 

DISTRICTS

It may be appropriate for unsewered community 

on-site systems to be maintained by local sewage 

disposal maintenance districts. These special 

districts could be administered through existing local 

governments such as County Water Districts, a 

Community Services District, or a County Service 

Area. 

Septic tank maintenance districts should be 

responsible for operation and maintenance in 

conformance with this Water Quality Control Plan. 

Administrators should insure proper construction, 

installation, operation, and maintenance of on-site 

disposal systems. Maintenance districts should 

establish septic tank surveillance, maintenance and 

pumping programs, where appropriate; provide 

repairs to plumbing or leachfields; and encourage 

water conservation measures.

VIII.D.3. CRITERIA FOR NEW 

SYSTEMS

On-site sewage disposal system problems can be 

minimized with proper site location, design, 

installation, operation, and maintenance. The 

following section recommends criteria for all new 

individual subsurface disposal systems and 

community sewage disposal systems. Local 

governing jurisdictions should incorporate these 

guidelines into their local ordinances. These 

recommendations will be used by the Regional 

Board for Regional Board regulated systems and 

exemptions.

Recommendations are arranged in sequence under 

the following categories: site suitability; system 

design; construction; individual system maintenance; 

community system design; and local agencies.

Mandatory criteria are listed in the "Individual, 

Alternative, and Community Systems Prohibitions" 

section.
June 8, 2011 IV-61

VIII.D.3.a. SITE SUITABILITY

Prior to permit approval, site investigation should 

determine on-site system suitability:

1. At least one soil boring or excavation per on-site 

system should be performed to determine soil 

suitability, depth to ground water, and depth to 

bedrock or impervious layer. Soil borings are 

particularly important for seepage pits. 

Impervious material is defined as having a 

percolation rate slower than 120 minutes per inch 

or having a clay content 60 percent or greater. 

The soil boring or excavation should extend at 

least 10 feet below the drainfield1 bottom at each 

proposed location.

2. An excavation should be made to detect mottling 

or presence of underground channels, fissures, 

or cracks. Soils should be excavated to a depth 

of 4-5 feet below drainfield bottom. 

3. For leachfields, at least three percolation test 

locations should be used to determine system 

acceptability. Tests should be performed at 

proposed subsurface disposal system sites and 

depths.

4. If no restrictive layers intersect, and geologic 

conditions permit surfacing, the setback distance 

from a cut, embankment, or steep slope (greater 

than 30 percent) should be determined by 

projecting a line 20 percent down gradient from 

the sidewall at the highest perforation of the 

discharge pipe. The leachfields should be setback far enough to prevent this projected line 

from intersecting the cut within 100 feet, 

measured horizontally, of the sidewall. If 

restrictive layers intersect cuts, embankments or 

steep slopes, and geologic conditions permit 

surfacing, the setback should be at least 100 feet 

measured from the top of the cut. 

5. Natural ground slope of the disposal area should 

not exceed 20 percent.

6. For new land divisions, lot sizes less than one 

acre should not be permitted.

VIII.D.3.b. SYSTEM DESIGN

On-site systems should be designed according to 

the following recommendations: 

1. Septic tanks should be designed to remove 

nearly 100 percent of settleable solids and should 

provide a high degree of anaerobic 

decomposition of colloidal and soluble organic 

solids. 

2. Tank design must allow access for inspection 

and cleaning. The septic tank must be 

accessible for pumping. 

3. If curtain drains discharge diverted ground water 

to subsurface soils, the upslope separation from 

a leachfield or pit should be 20 feet and the down 

slope separation should be 50 feet.

4. Leachfield application rate should not exceed the 

following:

Percolation Rate Loading Rate

 min./in g.p.d./sq.ft.

---------------------- ----------------------

 1 - 20 0.8

 21 - 30 0.6

 31 - 60 0.25

 61 - 120 0.10

5. Seepage pit application rate should not exceed 

0.3 gpd/sq. ft.

6. Drainfield1design should be based only upon 

usable permeable soil layers. 

7. The minimum design flow rate should be 375 

gallons per day per dwelling unit.

8. In clayey soils, systems should be constructed to 

place infiltrative surfaces in more permeable 

horizons. 

____________

1 ”Drainfield” refers to either a leachfield or seepage pit
June 8, 2011 IV-62

9. Distance between drainfield trenches should be 

at least two times the effective trench depth.1

10. Distance between seepage pits (nearest sidewall 

to sidewall) should be at least 20 feet.

11. Dual disposal fields (200 percent of original 

calculated disposal area) are recommended. 

12. For commercial systems, small institutions, or 

sanitary industrial systems, design should be 

based on daily peak flow. 

13. For commercial and institutional systems, 

pretreatment may be necessary if wastewater is 

significantly different from domestic wastewater. 

14. Commercial systems, institutional systems, or 

domestic industrial systems should reserve an 

expansion area (i.e. dual drainfields must be 

installed and area for replacement of drainfield 

must be provided) to be set aside and protected 

from all uses except future drainfield repair and 

replacement.

15. Nutrient and heavy metal removal should be 

facilitated by planting ground cover vegetation 

over shallow subsurface drainfields. The plants 

must have the following characteristics: (1) 

evergreen, (2) shallow root systems, (3) 

numerous leaves, (4) salt resistant, (5) ability to 

grow in soggy soils, and (6) low or no 

maintenance. Plants downstream of leaching 

area may also be effective in nutrient removal.

VIII.D.3.c. DESIGN FOR ENGINEERED 

SYSTEMS

1. Mound systems should be installed in 

accordance with criteria contained in Guidelines

for Mound Systems by the State Water 

Resources Control Board. 

2. Evapotranspiration systems should be installed in 

accordance with criteria contained in Guidelines 

for Evapotranspiration Systems by 

the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Exceptions are: 

a. For evapotranspiration systems, each month 

of the highest precipitation year and lowest 

evaporation year within the previous ten years 

of record should be used for design.

b. Systems shall be designed by a registered 

civil engineer competent in sanitary 

engineering.

VIII.D.3.d. CONSTRUCTION

Water quality problems resulting from improper 

construction can be reduced by following these 

practices:

1. Subsurface disposal systems should have a 

slightly sloped finished grade to promote surface 

runoff. 

2. Work should be scheduled only when infiltrative 

surfaces can be covered in one day to minimize 

windblown silt or rain clogging the soil. 

3. In clayey soils, work should be done only when 

soil moisture content is low to avoid smeared 

infiltrative surfaces.

4. Bottom and sidewall areas should be left with a 

rough surface. Any smeared or compacted 

surfaces should be removed. 

5. Bottom of trenches or beds should be level 

throughout to prevent localized overloading. 

6. Two inches of coarse sand should be placed on 

the bottom of trenches to prevent compacting soil 

when leachrock is dumped into drainfields. Fine 

sand should not be used as it may lead to system 

failure. 

7. Surface runoff should be diverted around open 

trenches/ pits to limit siltation of bottom area.

____________

1 “Effective trench depth” means depth below the bottom of the 

trench pipe.
June 8, 2011 IV-63

8. Prior to backfilling, the distribution system should 

be tested to check the hydraulic loading pattern.

9. Properly constructed distribution boxes or 

junction fittings should be installed to maintain 

equal flow to each trench. Distribution boxes 

should be placed with extreme care outside the 

leaching area to insure settling does not occur.

10. Risers to the ground surface and manholes 

should be installed over the septic tank 

inspection ports and access ports.

11. Drainfield should include an inspection pipe to 

check water level.

Additional construction precautions are discussed 

within the Environmental Protection Agency's Design 

Manual: On-Site Wastewater Treatment and 

Disposal Systems.

VIII.D.3.e. INDIVIDUAL SYSTEM 

MAINTENANCE

Individual septic tanks should be maintained as 

follows:

1. Septic tanks should be inspected every two to 

five years to determine the need for pumping. If 

garbage grinders or dishwashers discharge into 

the septic tank, inspection should occur at least 

every two years. 

2. Septic tanks should be pumped whenever: (1) 

the scum layer is within three inches of the outlet 

device; or (2) the sludge level is within eight 

inches of the bottom of the outlet device. 

3. Drainfields should be alternated when drainfield 

inspection pipes reveal a high water level. 

4. Disposal of septage (solid residue pumped from 

septic tanks) should be accomplished in a 

manner acceptable to the Executive Officer. In 

some areas, disposal may be to either a 

Class I or Class II solid waste site; in others, 

septage may be discharged to a municipal 

wastewater treatment facility.

VIII.D.3.f. COMMUNITY SYSTEM DESIGN

Community systems should be designed and 

maintained to accommodate the following items:

1. Capacities should accommodate build-out 

population.

2. Design should be based upon peak daily flow 

estimates. 

3. Design should consider contributions from 

infiltration throughout the collection system.

4. Septic tanks should be pumped when sludge and 

scum levels are greater than 1/3 of the depth of 

the first compartment. 

5. Operation and maintenance should be in 

accordance with accepted sanitary practice.

6. Maintenance manuals should be provided to 

system users and maintenance personnel.

7. Discharge should not exceed 40 grams per day 

total nitrogen, on the average, per acre of total 

development overlying ground water recharge 

areas, unless local governing jurisdictions adopt 

Wastewater Management Plans subsequently 

approved by the Regional Board.

VIII.D.3.g. LOCAL AGENCIES

Recommendations for local governing jurisdictions:

1. Adopt a standard percolation test procedure.

The California State Water Resources Control 

Board Guidelines for Evapotranspiration Systems

provides a percolation test method recommended 

for use to standardize test 
June 8, 2011 IV-64

results. A twelve-inch diameter percolation test 

hole may be used.

2. Percolation tests should be continued until a 

stabilized rate is obtained.

3. Percolation test holes should be drilled with a 

hand auger. A hole could be hand augered or 

dug with hand tools at the bottom of a larger 

excavation made by a backhoe. 

4. Percolation tests should be performed at a depth 

corresponding to the bottom of the subsurface 

disposal area.

5. Seepage pits should be utilized only after careful 

consideration of site suitability. Soil borings or 

excavations should be inspected either by 

permitting agency or individual under contract to 

the permitting agency.

6. Approve permit applications after checking plans 

for erosion control measures.

7. Inspect systems prior to covering to assure 

proper construction. 

8. Require replacements or repairs to failing 

systems to be in conformance with Basin Plan 

recommendations, to the extent practicable.

9. For new land divisions, protect on-site disposal 

systems and expansion areas from 

encroachment by provisions in covenants, 

conditions, and restrictions.

10. Inform property buyers of the existence, location, 

operation, and maintenance of on-site disposal 

systems. Prospective home or property buyers 

should also be informed of any enforcement 

action (e.g. Basin Plan prohibitions) through the 

County Record.

11. Conduct public education programs to provide 

property owners with operation and maintenance 

guidelines.

12. Alternative system owners shall be provided an 

informational maintenance or replacement 

document by the appropriate governing 

jurisdiction. This document shall cite homeowner 

procedures to ensure 

maintenance, repair, or replacement of critical 

items within 48 hours following failure.

13. Where appropriate, septic tank systems should 

be maintained by local septic tank maintenance 

districts.

14. Wastewater Management Plans should be 

prepared and implemented for urbanizing and 

high density areas, including applicable portions 

of San Martin, San Lorenzo Valley, Carmel 

Valley, Carmel Highland, Prunedale, El Toro, 

Shandon, Templeton, Santa Margarita/Garden 

Farms, Los Osos/Baywood Park, Arroyo Grande, 

Nipomo, upper Santa Ynez Valley, and Los 

Olivos/Ballard.

15. Ordinances should be updated to reflect Basin 

Plan criteria.

VIII.D.3.h. ADDITIONAL 

CONSIDERATIONS

1. Water conservation and solids reduction 

practices are recommended. Garbage grinders 

should not be used in homes with septic tanks.

2. Metering and water use costs should be used to 

encourage water conservation.

3. Grease and oil should not be introduced into the 

system. Bleach, solvents, fungicides, and any 

other toxic material should not be poured into the 

system.

4. Reverse osmosis unit blow-down should not be 

discharged to on-site wastewater treatment 

systems overlying usable ground water. Off-site 

(factory regeneration) practices are 

recommended for water softeners.

5. If on-site water softener regeneration is 

necessary, minimum salt use in water softeners 

is recommended. This can be accomplished by 

minimizing regeneration time or limiting the 

number of regeneration cycles.
June 8, 2011 IV-65

VIII.D.3.i. INDIVIDUAL, ALTERNATIVE

AND COMMUNITY SYSTEMS

PROHIBITIONS

Discharges from new soil absorption systems 

installed after September 16, 1983 in sites with 

any of the following conditions are prohibited:

1. Soils or formations contain continuous channels, 

cracks, or fractures.1

2. For seepage pits, soils or formations containing 

60 percent or greater clay (a soil particle less 

than two microns in size) unless parcel size is at 

least two acres.

3. Distances between trench bottom and usable 

ground water, including perched ground water, 

less than separation specified by appropriate 

percolation rate:

Percolation

Rate, min/in Distance, ft

----------------- ------------------

<1 501

1-4 201

5-29 8

>30 5

4. For seepage pits, distances between pit bottom 

and usable ground water, including perched 

ground water, less than separation specified by 

appropriate soil type: 

Soil Distance,ft.

--------------------- -------------------

Gravels2501

Gravels with

 few fines3201 

Other 10 

5. Distances between trench/pit bottom and bedrock 

or other impervious layer less than ten feet.

6. For leachfields, where percolation rates are 

slower than 120 min/in, unless parcel size is at 

least two acres.

7. For leachfields, where soil percolation rates are 

slower than 60 min./in. unless the effluent 

application rate is 0.1 gpd/ft2 or less.

8. Areas subject to inundation from a ten-year flood.

9. Natural ground slope of the disposal area 

exceeds 30 percent.

10. Setback distances less than:

Minimum Setback

 Distance, ft 

 ----------------

Domestic water supply wells in

unconfined aquifer 100

Watercourse4 where geologic 

conditions permit water migration 100

Reservoir5spillway elevation 200

Springs, natural or any part

of man-made spring 100

____________

1 Unless a set-back distance of at least 250 feet to any domestic 

water supply well or surface water is assured. 

2 Gravels - Soils with over 95 percent by weight coarser than a 

No. 200 sieve and over half of the coarse fraction larger than a 

No. 4 sieve.

3 Gravels with few fines - Soils with 90 percent to 94 percent 

coarse fraction larger than a No. 4 sieve.

4 Watercourse - (1) A natural or artificial channel for passage of 

water. (2) A running stream of water. (3) A natural stream fed 

from permanent or natural sources, including rivers, creeks, 

runs, and rivulets. There must be a stream, usually flowing in a 

particular direction (though it need not flow continuously) in a 

definite channel, having a bed or banks and usually 

discharging into some stream or body of water.

5 Reservoir- A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space either 

natural or created in whole or in part by the building of 

engineering structures, which is used for storage, regulation, 

and control of water, recreation, power, flood control, or 

drinking.
June 8, 2011 IV-66

11. While new septic tank systems should generally 

be limited to new divisions of land having a 

minimum parcel size of one acre, where soil and 

other physical constraints are particularly 

favorable, parcel size shall not be less than onehalf acre. 

12. Within a reservoir1 watershed where the density 

for each land division is less than 2.5 acres for 

areas without approved Wastewater 

Management Plans. 

13. For individual systems on new land divisions, and 

commercial, institutional, and sanitary industrial 

systems without an area set aside for dual 

leachfields (100 percent replacement area). 

14. Commercial, institutional, or sanitary industrial 

systems not basing design on daily peak flow 

estimate. 

15. Any site unable to maintain subsurface disposal.

16. Any subdivision unless the subdivider clearly 

demonstrates the use of the system will be in the 

best public interest, that beneficial water uses will 

not be adversely affected, and compliance with 

all Basin Plan prohibitions is demonstrated.

17. Lot sizes, dwelling densities or site conditions 

causing detrimental impacts to water quality.

18. Any area where continued use of on-site systems 

constitutes a public health hazard, an existing or 

threatened condition of water pollution, or 

nuisance.

Discharges from community subsurface disposal 

systems (serving more than five parcels or more 

than five dwelling units) are prohibited unless:

1 Seepage pits have at least 15 vertical feet 

between pit bottom and highest usable ground 

water, including perched ground water.

2. Sewerage facilities are operated by a public 

agency. (If a demonstration is made to the 

Regional Board that an existing public agency is 

unavailable and formation of a new public agency 

is unreasonable, a private entity with adequate 

financial, legal, and institutional resources to 

assume responsibility for waste discharges may 

be acceptable).

3. Dual disposal systems are installed (200 percent 

of total of original calculated disposal area).

4. An expansion area is included for replacement of 

the original system (300 percent total).

5. Community systems provide duplicate individual 

equipment components for components subject 

to failure.

6. Discharge does not exceed 40 grams per day of 

total nitrogen, on the average, per 1/2 acre of 

total development overlying ground water 

recharge areas excepting where a local 

governing jurisdiction has adopted a Wastewater 

Management Plan subsequently approved by the 

Regional Board. 

In order to achieve water quality objectives, 

protect present and future beneficial water uses, 

protect public health, and prevent nuisance, 

discharges are prohibited in the following areas:

1. Discharges from individual sewage disposal 

systems are prohibited in portions of the 

community of Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, 

which are particularly described in Appendix A27.

2. Discharges from individual sewage disposal 

systems within the San Lorenzo River Watershed 

shall be managed as follows:

a. Discharges shall be allowed, providing the 

County of Santa Cruz, as lead agency, 

implements the “Wastewater Management 

Plan for the San Lorenzo River Watershed, 

County of Santa Cruz, Health Services 

Agency, Environmental Health Service”, 

February 1995 and “San Lorenzo Nitrate 

Management Plan, Phase II Final Report”, 

February 1995, County of Santa Cruz, Health 

Services Agency, Environmental Health 

Service (Wastewater Management Plan) and 

assures the Regional Board that areas of the 

San Lorenzo River Watershed are serviced 

by wastewater disposal systems to protect 

and enhance water quality, to protect and 

restore beneficial uses of water, and to abate 

and prevent nuisance, pollution, and 

contamination.

____________

1 Reservoir – A pond, lake, tank, basin, or other space either 

natural or created in whole or in part by the building of 

engineering structures, which is used for storage, regulation, 

and control of water, recreation, power, flood control, or drinking.
June 8, 2011 IV-67

In fulfilling the responsibilities identified above, 

the County of Santa Cruz shall submit annual 

reports beginning on January 15, 1996. The 

report shall state the status and progress of the 

Wastewater Management Plan in the San 

Lorenzo River Watershed. The County of Santa 

Cruz annual report shall document the results of:

a. Existing disposal system performance 

evaluations,

b. Disposal system improvements,

c. Inspection and maintenance of on-site 

systems,

d. Community disposal system improvements,

e. New development and expansion of existing 

system protocol and standards,

f. Water quality monitoring and evaluation,

g. Program administration management, and

h. Program information management.

The report shall also document progress on each 

element of the Nitrate Management Plan, 

including:

a. Parcel size limit,

b. Wastewater Management Plan 

implementation,

c. Boulder Creek Country Club Wastewater 

Treatment Plant Upgrade,

d. Shallow leachfield installation,

e. Enhanced wastewater treatment for sandy 

soils,

f. Enhanced wastewater treatment for large onsite disposal systems,

g. Inclusion of nitrogen reduction in Waste 

Discharge Permits,

h. Livestock and stable management,

i. Protection of ground water recharge areas,

j. Protection of riparian corridors and erosion 

control,

k. Nitrate control for new uses,

l. Scotts Valley nitrate discharge reduction, and 

m. Monitoring for nitrate in surface and ground 

water.

3. Discharges from individual and community 

sewage disposal systems are prohibited effective 

November 1, 1988, in the Los Osos/Baywood 

Park area depicted in the Prohibition Boundary 

Map included as Attachment "A" of Resolution 

No. 83-13 which can be found in Appendix A-30.

VIII.D.3.j. SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL 

EXEMPTIONS

The Regional Board or Executive Officer may grant 

exemption to prohibitions for: (1) engineered new 

on- site disposal systems for sites unsuitable for 

standard systems; and (2) new or existing on-site 

systems within the specific prohibition areas cited 

above. Such exemptions may be granted only after 

presentation by the discharger of sufficient

justification, including geologic and hydrologic 

evidence that the continued operation of such 

system(s) in a particular area will not individually or 

collectively, directly or indirectly, result in pollution or 

nuisance, or affect water quality adversely.

Individual, alternative, and community systems shall 

not be approved for any area where it appears that 

the total discharge of leachate to the geological 

system, under fully developed conditions, will cause: 

(1) damage to public or private property; (2) ground 

or surface water degradation; (3)nuisance condition; 

or, (4) a public health hazard. Interim use of septic 

tank systems may be permitted where alternate 

parcels are held in reserve until sewer systems are 

available.

Requests for exemptions will not be considered until 

the local entity has reviewed the system and 

submitted the proposal for Regional Board review. 

Dischargers requesting exemptions must submit a 

Report of Waste Discharge. Exemptions will be 

subject to filing fees as established by the State

Water Code.

Engineered systems shall be designed only by 

registered engineers competent in sanitary 

engineering. Engineers should be responsible for 

proper system operation. Engineers should be 

responsible for educating system users of proper 

operation and maintenance. Maintenance schedules 

should be established. Engineered systems should 

be inspected by designer during installation to insure 

conformance with approved plans.

Some engineered systems may be considered 

experimental by the Regional Board. Experimental 

systems will be handled with caution. A trial period 

of at least one year should be established whereby 

proper system operation must be demonstrated. 

Under such an approach, experimental systems are 

granted a one year conditional approval.

Further information concerning individual, 

alternative, or community on-site sewage disposal 

systems can be found in Chapter 5 in the 

Management Principals and Control Actions 

sections. State Water Resources Control Board 

Plans and Policies, Discharge Prohibitions, and 
June 8, 2011 IV-68

Regional Board Policies may also apply depending 

on individual circumstances.

VIII.E. LAND DISTURBANCE 

ACTIVITIES

Construction, mining, and other soil disturbance 

activities which may disturb or expose soil or 

otherwise increase susceptibility of land areas to 

erosion are difficult to regulate effectively. 

Construction or timber harvesting may often begin 

and end with no obvious impairment of stream 

quality; however, erosion or land slides the following 

winter may be directly related to earlier land 

disturbance or tree cutting. Mining and quarrying 

activities are generally longer in duration.

Under contract with the Regional Board, the 

California Association of Resource Conservation 

Districts completed a study entitled, "Erosion and 

Sediment in California Central Coast Watersheds - A 

study of Best Management Practices" (Erosion 

Study), dated June, 1979. This Erosion Study, 

funded under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, 

assesses impacts of erosion and sedimentation on 

water quality and beneficial uses in nondesignated 

planning areas (San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and 

Santa Barbara Counties) of the Central Coast 

Region. This Erosion Study and supporting 

documents have been used by the Regional Board 

in developing erosion and sedimentation control 

policy. 

Nonpoint source pollution in the remainder of the 

Region is addressed by designated planning 

agencies through their respective Area wide Waste 

Treatment Management Plans. Designated 

agencies and the areas affected within this Region 

include: Association of Bay Area Governments 

(portions of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties), 

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 

(Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties), and Ventura 

County Board of Supervisors (portion of Ventura 

County). The policy herein described is compatible 

with those plans and is within the scope of the 

Regional Board authority.

The Erosion Study and Area wide Waste Treatment 

Management Plans identify examples of accelerated 

erosion resulting from insufficient land management 

of soil cultivation, grazing, silvaculture, construction, 

and off-road vehicle activities, as well as wildfires.

Adverse impacts of sediment are identified, in part, 

as: impairment of water supplies and ground water 

recharge, siltation of streams and reservoirs, 

impairment of navigable waters, loss of fish and 

wildlife habitat, degradation of recreational waters, 

transport of pathogens and toxic substances, 

increased flooding, increased soil loss, and 

increased costs associated with maintenance and 

operation of water storage and transport facilities. 

Recommendations based on conclusions of the 

Erosion Study and practices recommended in Area 

wide Waste Treatment Management Plans are a 

means to reduce unnecessary soil loss due to 

erosion and to minimize adverse water quality 

impacts resulting from sediment.

When a practice or combination of practices is found 

to be the most effective, practical (including 

technological, economic, and institutional 

considerations) means of preventing or reducing the 

amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources 

to a level compatible with water quality goals, it is 

designated a Best Management Practice (BMP). 

BMPs are determined only after problem 

assessment, examination of alternative practices, 

and appropriate public participation in the BMP 

development process.

General recommendations based on conclusions of 

the Erosion Study are discussed below. These 

recommendations are considered to be Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) by the Regional 

Board as are the Area wide approved water quality 

management plans.

1. Soil conservation control measures should be 

used to minimize impacts that would otherwise 

result from soil erosion. Control measures are 

identified according to systems, which are then 

broken down into subsystems of erosion control 

techniques or component measures.

For example, a system for control of erosion from 

construction sites would identify component 

measures such as debris basins, access roads, 

hillside ditches, etc. Other conservation control 

systems include: conservation cropping, 

conservation irrigation, roadside erosion control, 

critical area treatment, diversions and ditches, 

grade stabilization, pasture and range 

management, runoff and sediment control ponds 

and basins, stream bank and channel protection, 

and watershed, wildlife, and recreation land 
June 8, 2011 IV-69

improvement. These control measures are 

comparable to the USDA Soil Conservation 

Services' Resource Management Subsystem 

approach as referenced in AMBAG's "Water 

Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay 

Region," dated July 1978, and in ABAG's, 

"Handbook of Best Management Practices, 

“dated October 1977.

Experience has shown that no one control 

measure best solves an existing, or prevents a 

potential, pollution problem - especially in the 

area of soil erosion and sedimentation. As land 

use, the land user, and various situations 

change, so does the need for control measures. 

Before application, an on-site investigation with 

the land user is necessary to determine which 

practice or set of practices will be most effective 

and acceptable.

2. Erosion control should be implemented in a 

reasonable manner with as much implementation 

responsibility remaining with existing local entities 

and programs as is possible and consistent with 

water quality goals. 

3. The Regional Board and local units of 

government should establish a clear policy for 

control of erosion, including consideration of offsite and cumulative impacts and the imposition of 

performance standards according to the 

sensitivity of the area where land is to be 

disturbed. 

4. Effective ordinances and regulatory programs 

should be adopted by local units of government. 

Effective programs would allow only land 

disturbance actions consistent with the waste 

load capacity of the watershed, require 

preparation of erosion and sediment control plans 

with specific contents and with attention to both 

offsite/on-site impacts, identify performance 

standards, be at least comparable to the model 

ordinance in the "Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook," dated May 1978, and have 

provisions for inspection follow-up, enforcement, 

and referral. 

5. Watersheds with critical erosion and sediment 

problems should be identified by one or more 

concerned agencies such as the California 

Department of Fish and Game, the Regional 

Board, the local Environmental Health, 

Planning, or Engineering Departments, the 

local Flood Control District, or the local 

Resource Conservation District, and then 

referred to the remaining agencies by a 

designated local coordinating agency for 

determining the scope, nature, and 

significance of the identified problem. The 

designated local agency would evaluate the 

adequacy and appropriateness of the total 

assessment, including an assessment of the 

problem and causes, alternatives considered, 

recommended interim and permanent control 

measures, and the amount and sources of 

funding. The evaluation would then be 

submitted as an Impact Findings Report for 

consideration and decision by the local 

governing body.

6. Comprehensive and continuous training 

should be mandatory for building and grading 

inspectors, engineers, and planners involved 

in approving, designing, or inspecting erosion 

control plans and on-site control measures. 

The training program would preferably be 

conducted on an inter-county/agency basis 

and be administered through a USDA Soil 

Conservation Service cooperative training 

arrangement or through seminars conducted 

by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and 

the University of California Cooperative 

Extension seminars. The Soil Conservation 

Society of America should be requested to 

assist in establishing an effective training 

program, including public education to 

heighten awareness of the adverse affects of 

erosion and sediment on soil and water 

resources.

7. More intensive erosion controls should be 

considered within four watersheds (Lauro 

Reservoir and Devereaux Ranch Slough in 

Santa Barbara County and Pismo Lake and 

Morro Bay in San Luis Obispo County) with 

apparent critical erosion and sediment 

problems. Alternative practices that may be 

implemented to effect the necessary level of 

control are assigned a relative priority.
June 8, 2011 IV-70

VIII.E.1. LAND DISTURBANCE 

PROHIBITIONS

The discharge or threatened discharge of soil, silt, 

bark, slash, sawdust, or other organic and earthen 

materials into any stream in the basin in violation of 

best management practices for timber harvesting, 

construction, and other soil disturbance activities 

and in quantities deleterious to fish, wildlife, and 

other beneficial uses is prohibited.

The placing or disposal of soil, silt, bark, slash, 

sawdust, or other organic and earthen materials 

from timber harvesting, construction, and other soil 

disturbance activities at locations above the 

anticipated high water line of any stream in The 

basin where they may be washed into said waters 

by rainfall or runoff in quantities deleterious to fish, 

wildlife, and other beneficial uses is prohibited.

Soil disturbance activities not exempted pursuant to 

Regional Board Management Principles contained in 

Chapter Five are prohibited:

1. In geologically unstable areas,

2. On slopes in excess of thirty percent (excluding 

agricultural activities), and

3. On soils rated a severe erosion hazard by soil 

specialists (as recognized by the Executive 

Officer) where water quality may be adversely 

impacted;

Unless,

a. In the case of agriculture, operations comply with 

a Farm Conservation or Farm Management Plan 

approved by a Resource Conservation District or 

the USDA Soil Conservation Service;

b. In the case of construction and land 

development, an erosion and sediment control 

plan or its equivalent (e.g., EIR, local ordinance) 

prescribes best management practices to 

minimize erosion during the activity, and the plan 

is certified or approved, and will be enforced by 

a local unit of government through persons 

trained in erosion control techniques; or,

c. There is no threat to downstream beneficial uses 

of water, as certified by the Executive Officer of 

the Regional Board.

The controllable discharge of soil, silt, or earthen 

material from any grazing, farm animal and livestock, 

hydromodification, road, or other activity of whatever 

nature into waters of the State within the Pajaro River 

watershed is prohibited.

The controllable discharge of soil, silt, or earthen 

material from any grazing, farm animal and livestock, 

hydromodification, road, or other activity of whatever 

nature to a location where such material could pass 

into waters of the State within the Pajaro River 

watershed is prohibited.

The above two prohibitions do not apply to any 

discharge regulated by National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits, Waste Discharge 

Requirements or waivers of Waste Discharge 

Requirements.

The above two prohibitions do not apply to any 

grazing, farm animal and livestock, 

hydromodification, or road activity if the owner or 

operator:

i. Submits a Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

Implementation Program, consistent with the 

Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, May 

20, 2004, that is approved by the Executive 

Officer, or

ii. Demonstrates there is no activity that may cause 

soil, silt, or earthen material to pass into waters of 

the state within the Pajaro River watershed, as 

approved by the Executive Officer.

This Land Disturbance Prohibition takes effect three 

years following approval of the TMDL by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

VIII.E.2. CONSTRUCTION 

ACTIVITIES

Road construction is often a cause of water quality 

impairment; all too often roads are located near 

streams, estuaries, or ocean waters where side fills 

may be eroded by flood waters. Construction within 

stream beds will inevitably cause turbidity; however, 

the timing of such activities should be established 

with reference to environmental sensitivity factors 

such as fish migrations, spawning or hatching, and 
June 8, 2011 IV-71

minimum stream flow conditions. Sediment loads 

can be reduced by proper timing, bank and channel 

protection, and use of settling ponds to catch silt.

Construction debris should not be left in the flood 

plain; revegetation of cuts and fills should be 

encouraged. California Department of 

Transportation (CALTRANS) has prepared a 

document entitled “Best Management Practices for 

Control of Water Pollution (Transportation 

Activities)," that sets forth procedures used by 

CALTRANS to address transportation activities 

which might impact water quality. These procedures 

are summarized under "Control Actions" in the Plans 

and Policies chapter. Past and potential impacts 

from CALTRANS activities may result from the 

above problems and may include impacts resulting 

from questionable maintenance practices, chemical 

spills, and discharges of silt and cement.

Land development projects in sensitive areas should 

be scheduled so as to minimize the areal extent of 

land exposed to erosive forces. Where water quality 

impairment is likely, permits should be issued by the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board which will 

insure against water quality degradation. 

Cooperation of local approving agencies should be 

obtained in order that approvals of significant 

subdivisions in environmentally sensitive areas, 

particularly the upper reaches of watersheds and 

lands near riparian habitats, are appropriately 

conditioned. For example, proposed subdivisions of 

50 lots or more in such areas should be (1) covered 

by environmental impact reports on the development 

and its impact on waste loads and water quality, (2) 

be in conformance with regional or county master 

plans, and (3) include provisions for establishment of 

a public agency responsible for environmental 

monitoring and maintenance where such 

subdivisions are outside other appropriate public 

jurisdictions.

VIII.E.3. MINING ACTIVITIES

Pollution control at the hundreds of inactive mine 

sites riddling the Coast Ranges is in its infancy. 

Accurate regional inventories are being compiled, 

isolated mine cases are addressed individually, and 

several polluting mines are under direct regulation. 

Regional Board assistance and consultation are 

aiding several proactive responsible parties and 

focused study of inactive mine effects on four 

Central Coast watersheds has been funded by the 

Clean Water Act, Water Quality Planning Program.

About a decade ago Toxic Substances Monitoring 

Program data revealed elevated mercury 

concentrations in Lake Nacimiento, a high priority 

municipal and agricultural water storage reservoir in 

San Luis Obispo County. The Lake is fed by the Las 

Tablas Creek system (among others), which 

receives discharge water from the Buena Vista Mine, 

a mercury mine inactive since 1970 or 1971. An 

academic study (conducted by respected Cal Poly 

scientists -- team leader, Dr. Thomas J. Rice) of lake 

Nacimiento mercury sources recently concluded up 

to 78% of the fluvial mercury transport to the Lake is 

contributed by the Las Tablas Creek system. 

Further, the inactive Buena Vista and Klau Mines 

were identified as the primary point sources of Las 

Tablas Creek mercury. Based on these conclusions 

and other independent supporting data, the Regional 

Board on May 14, 1993, adopted four orders 

requiring strict implementation of NPDES surface 

water discharge standards and California Code of 

Regulations Title 23 mine waste management and 

mine closure standards at the Buena Vista Mine 

and the adjacent Klau Mine.

The U. S. Bureau of Land Management and Forest 

Service are addressing several inactive mercury 

mines on their properties pursuant to the federal 

"Superfund" process. Sample analyses data 

generated by Regional Board staff have been 

instrumental in aiding these investigations.

Two sequential studies of inactive mines in four 

watersheds of northwest San Luis Obispo County 

are underway. Funded partially by the Clean Water 

Act Water Quality Planning Program, the studies 

address all inactive mines in the Las Tablas Creek, 

Santa Rosa Creek, San Simeon Creek (all primarily 

mercury mines), and Chorro Creek (primarily 

chromium) watersheds. The primary goals of the 

watershed studies are:

identification of all inactive mines

attribution of specific water quality problems to 

specific mines, and

determinations of the best methods of abating 

contaminant sources and remediating already 

emplaced surface contamination, based on field 

and possibly lab experiments.

These are considered pilot studies and the Regional 

Board ultimately plans to conduct such studies for 

the complete Region and to implement the findings, 

resulting in abatement of inactive mines as surface 

and ground water contaminant sources and 

remediation of contaminated media.
June 8, 2011 IV-72

VIII.E.4. TIMBER HARVESTING 

ACTIVITIES

The Regional Board has regulatory responsibility to 

prevent adverse water quality impacts from timber 

harvest activities. Impacts usually consist of 

temperature, turbidity, and siltation effects caused 

by logging and associated activities. These can 

have deleterious impacts on fish and water flow.

Sensitivity of all watercourses, lakes, estuaries, or 

ocean waters in the basin to timber harvesting 

operations should be identified following rigorous

analysis of geological, pedological, hydrological, and 

biological data as confirmed by field inspections. 

Relative sensitivity could then be portrayed on a 

large map. The sensitivity would also reflect 

beneficial uses which are not directly associated 

with ecological systems.

Upon receiving a timber harvest plan, the Regional 

Board staff could locate the operation on the 

sensitivity map and determine the relative risk 

involved. This information could enable the board to 

better evaluate the proposed method of operation 

and the adequacy of proposed mitigation actions or 

other special considerations. The success of this 

process depends upon the degree of cooperation 

provided by the Department of Forestry. Timber 

harvest plans must contain sufficient detail for 

evaluation, and the Regional Board must be allowed 

an ample amount of time for review before start of 

timber harvesting operations. 

The timber yarding and road building methods used 

at each operation is a function of the terrain, soils, 

species and other timber considerations including 

economics. The aforementioned are usually 

compatible with water quality management, but in 

cases where water quality may be degraded, 

mitigating measures to preserve the character and 

quality of the water course must be taken. Since the 

Department of Forestry is familiar with the limitations 

and relative degradation potential of the various 

harvest methods, it has the lead role in incorporating 

necessary mitigation measures into the permits and 

seeing that they are enforced.

The Department of Forestry administers provisions 

of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973. 

The Act provides an opportunity for Regional Boards 

involved with timber harvesting activities to 

participate on the Timber Harvest Plan permit 

process review team. A 1987 Clean Water Act 

amendment requires States to implement Water 

Quality Management Plans to control nonpoint 

sources of pollution, including silviculture. As part of 

that directive, the State Board has executed a 

Management Agency Agreement (MAA) with the 

Board of Forestry and Department of Forestry. It 

provides a better opportunity for water quality 

concerns to be incorporated into timber harvesting 

practices and regulations.

Several possibilities exist to deal with negligent or 

incompetent operators. The Department of Forestry 

can revoke the Registered Professional Foresters or 

Licensed Timber Operator's License. The Regional 

Board can also implement enforcement action. 

While these actions can be necessary and effective, 

they are after-the-fact methods rather than for 

deterring roles. Thus, the major emphasis must be 

placed on control measures rather than enforcement 

actions.

VIII.E.5. AGENCY ACTIVITIES

To insure that impacts on water quality from 

nonpoint sources of pollution are held to a minimum 

and that goals and management principles of the 

Regional Board are met, water quality management 

programs for implementation by land managing 

agencies have been developed through the Area 

wide planning process. For nonpoint sources of 

pollution, this required identification of Best 

Management Practices (BMP's). 

Within the Central Coast Region, federal and State 

agencies control substantial portions of land. All 

retain their own land management programs, but are 

required by regulation to cooperate and give support 

to State planning agencies in formulating and 

implementing water quality management plans. 

Federal law also directs federal agencies to comply 

with requirements formulated to meet the objectives 

of the federal act.

Practices and procedures in the U. S. Forest 

Service's, U.S. Bureau of Land Management's 

(BLM's) and California Department of 

Transportation's (CALTRANS') 208 reports 

described below constitute proper management for 

water quality protection and are considered BMP's. 

Further, these agencies have expressed a

willingness and capability to implement practices 

and to revise practices which are currently 

inadequate. Management agency agreements have 

been prepared between the State Board and each of 

these agencies which designates the Forest Service, 

the BLM, and CALTRANS as management agencies 
June 8, 2011 IV-73

responsible for implementing BMPs for water quality 

protection on lands under the control of each of

these respective agencies. The management 

agency agreement further provides for 

State/Regional Board working relationships with 

each agency and establishes a mechanism by which 

the State and Regional Boards will, on a continuing 

basis and in conjunction with each of these 

agencies, identify and address water quality 

management issues of concern to all parties.

The management agency agreements, as approved 

by the State Water Resources Control Board and 

each of the agencies, are a part of this Water Quality 

Control Plan by reference. Management agency 

agreements will be reviewed and updated 

periodically to reflect recent achievements, new 

information, and new concerns.

VIII.E.5.a. UNITED STATES FOREST

SERVICE

The United States Forest Service has prepared a 

report entitled, "Water Quality Management Plan for 

the National Forest Systems Lands Within the 

Non-designated Planning Areas of California," dated 

April, 1979. The report assesses water quality 

problems, evaluates current practices, and sets forth 

procedures used by the Forest Service to address 

activities that might affect water quality. About 72 

percent of Los Padres National Forest (which 

encompasses 1,964,408 gross acres) is within the 

Central Coast Region. Water and watershed 

protection were the chief reasons the forest was 

established. Approximately 1.5 million acre feet of 

water per year are used by people living adjacent to 

the forest for domestic and agricultural purposes. 

Less than five percent of the area is commercial 

forest land and most wood production is fuel wood 

sales.

A qualitative assessment of water quality problems 

on National Forest lands within the Central Coast 

Region was conducted primarily from information 

gathered by Forest Service and Regional Board 

staff. Fire management and recreation are activities 

with the greatest influence on water quality. Other 

major activities with potential impact on water quality 

include road construction, road maintenance, and 

grazing. Fire management can cause degradation 

from sediments, nutrients, and bacteria, but the 

major cause might well be off-road vehicles and 

misuse of unimproved roads by all vehicles. Road 

construction has been a source of problems along 

the Cuyama River. No significant affects from 

overgrazing or silvacultural practices were noted.

During preparation of the Forest Service's "Water 

Quality Management Plan for the National Forest 

Systems Lands Within the Nondesignated Planning 

Area of California," adopted April, 1979, Forest 

Service manuals, guidelines, regulations, etc., were 

reviewed for identification of those practices which 

are directly or indirectly for the purpose of protecting 

water quality. The report identifies and discusses 

ninety-eight such practices in eight activity 

categories (i.e., timber harvesting, road and building 

site construction, mining, recreation, vegetative 

manipulation, fire supervision and prescribed 

burning, watershed management, and grazing). 

Ninety-four of the practices are presented as BMPs, 

while four practices need improvement, and four 

practices need development. A course of action for 

improving inadequacies of current practices and for 

development of new practices is identified. 

The practices/procedures contained in the Forest 

Service 208 plan are at a level of detail appropriate 

for all Forest Service operations statewide. These 

practices must be flexible to account for varying 

geographic conditions. The plan also includes a 

description of the "decision- making" process which 

leads to the actual selections of management 

solutions on a project-specific basis. There are 

several steps in this process at which Regional 

Boards can be involved and there is a public 

involvement program to identify and respond to 

concerns of interested public. The most critical point 

of involvement is Step 1, identification of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities. Once this step is 

completed, the need for and time of future 

involvement in subsequent steps can be identified.

VIII.E.5.b. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT

The United States Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has 

management responsibility for approximately 

320,000 acres within the Central Coast Region. 

Management 
June 8, 2011 IV-74

activities occurring on this land have potential for 

significantly affecting water quality (e.g., mining, 

grazing, recreation, road construction, off-road 

vehicles, etc.). The BLM prepared and submitted to 

the State a report entitled, "BLM California 208 

Report." The report includes: (a) a discussion of 

existing or potential water quality problems on BLM 

lands, (b) a discussion of current BLM practices and 

policies including a description of the BLM planning 

process, (c) a description of the "decision-making 

process" which leads to the actual selection of 

management solutions on a project-specific basis, 

and (d) general policies.

The problem assessment identifies nonpoint sources 

of water pollution originating on lands administered 

by the BLM. Problems were qualitatively assessed 

by BLM with information provided primarily by 

Regional Board staff. Most of the identified water 

quality problems on BLM lands within the Central 

Coast Region result from recreation.

There is improper grazing management on the 

Temblor range in east San Luis Obispo County 

(BLM's Bakersfield District) that is causing 

sedimentation of retention structures for beneficial 

uses.

The process for determining management practices 

on a site- specific basis applies to all BLM activities 

and is divided into three major phases; (1) 

consideration of site characteristics and water 

quality concerns, (2) definition and application of 

BMP's through contract clauses, leases, stipulations, 

etc., and (3) evaluation of BMP effectiveness and 

practice modification, if necessary.

VIII.E.5.c. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION

WATER QUALITY STUDIES

In developing control measures for CALTRANS 

projects, three basic types of studies are conducted

for water quality protection: 

1. Transportation System Planning - Emphasizes 

broad scale water quality problems. The focus is 

on regional factors such as variations in regional 

surface and ground water hydrology, existing 

water quality, and land use. Such studies are not 

site- specific.

2. Project Level Planning - Emphasis is on runoff 

associated problems (erosion and 

sedimentation). Detailed hydrologic and 

hydraulic analyses are made where warranted. 

Information is used in selecting project 

alternatives. 

3. Construction - This type is usually associated 

with waste discharge requirements (issued by 

Regional Board). The intent is to monitor and 

control the contractor's operations.

CONSTRUCTION CONTROL

Standard specifications for water pollution control 

have been prepared by CALTRANS, are set forth in 

CALTRANS' BMP document, and are incorporated 

as part of project design. Where warranted, special 

specifications are prepared by CALTRANS on a 

project- by-project basis. For every project, 

contractors must submit a plan for water pollution 

control to the CALTRANS resident engineer. During 

the course of any construction project, operations 

may be temporarily halted if inadequate provision 

has been made for water quality protection. 

Remedial work may be required.

In addition to CALTRANS specifications, federal and 

State permits (including waste discharge 

requirements) are made a part of project 

requirements.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

1. Accidental Chemical Spills - A procedural manual 

has been developed by each CALTRANS district 

to standardize cleanup procedures. CALTRANS 

maintenance personnel are equipped and trained 

to handle such situations.

2. Erosion Control - Where slopes show evidence of 

erosion, remedial stabilization measures must be 

taken. Debris is disposed of at approved 

disposal site.
June 8, 2011 IV-75

VIII.E.5.d. OTHER AGENCIES 

PROGRAMS

Resource Conservation Districts (RCD's) and the 

U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service are 

organizations that assist property owners in applying 

effective conservation and land management 

practices. The program includes technical, 

educational, and planning services to property 

owners and local governments who request 

assistance. It has been relatively successful 

considering its voluntary nature and resource 

limitations. The Soil Conservation Service has a 

major role in the Rural Clean Water Program.

The U.S.D.A. Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service administers the cost-sharing 

aspects of the Agricultural Conservation Program, 

allocating available monies to farmers and ranchers 

for erosion and sedimentation control and water 

conservation projects.

Cities and Counties, as general purpose 

governments, have broad powers to adopt specific 

and general plans; to regulate land use, subdividing, 

grading, and private construction; and to construct 

and operate public works facilities. Local authority 

to regulate existing and potential discharges of 

sediment has been exercised to varying degrees 

throughout the region.

Many cities and counties within the coastal zone 

have developed Local Coastal Programs. These 

programs may include land use and grading 

restrictions designed to protect long-term 

productivity of soils and waters within the coastal 

zone. Regulation by the California Coastal 

Commission provides this protection where Local 

Coastal Programs are inadequate.

The State Department of Fish and Game promotes 

the protection and improvement of streams, lakes, 

and natural habitat areas for fish and wildlife. It also 

regulates stream alteration and compels cleanup of 

fouled streams.

VIII.E.6. WATSONVILLE SLOUGH 

WATERSHED LIVESTOCK WASTE 

DISCHARGE PROHIBITION

1. The direct or indirect discharge of livestock 

animal waste from any grazing operations, nonsterile manure application, farm animal and 

livestock facilities including paddocks, pens, 

corrals, barns, sheds, or other activity of 

whatever nature into waters of the State within 

the Watsonville Slough Watershed is prohibited.

The above prohibition does not apply to any 

farm animal or livestock facility and/or any 

facility where non-sterile manure is applied if the 

owner or operator:

i. Submits a Nonpoint Source Pollution 

Control Implementation Program, 

consistent with the Policy for 

Implementation and Enforcement of the 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

Program, that is approved by the 

Executive Officer, or

ii. Demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

Executive Officer that its activities do not 

cause livestock waste to pass into 

waters of the state within the 

Watsonville Slough Watershed, or

iii. Is regulated under Waste Discharge 

Requirements or an NPDES permit, or a 

conditional waiver of waste discharge 

requirements that explicitly addresses 

compliance with the Watsonville Slough 

TMDL for Pathogens.

This Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition takes 

effect two years following approval of the TMDL by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
June 8, 2011 IV-76

IX. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

IX. A. MORRO BAY TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR 

SEDIMENT (INCLUDING CHORRO CREEK, LOS OSOS CREEK 

AND THE MORRO BAY ESTUARY)

This TMDL was adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on May 16, 2003.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on September 16, 2003.

The California Office of Administrative Law on December 3, 2003 (effective date).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on January 20, 2004.

TMDL ELEMENTS

Element

Problem 

Statement

Over time, all estuaries eventually fill with sediment due to the natural processes of 

erosion and sedimentation. In Morro Bay these natural processes have been 

accelerated due to anthropogenic watershed disturbances, resulting in impairment of 

Beneficial Uses, principally biological resources, but also recreational uses, including: 

RARE, MIGR, SPWN, WILD, EST, MAR, BIOL, REC1, REC2, NAV. This impairment 

indicates an exceedance of the Basin Plan narrative objective for sediment, which 

states that: “the suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of 

surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or 

adversely affect beneficial uses.” 
June 8, 2011 IV-77

Numeric 

Targets 

Parameter Numeric Target

Chorro and Los Osos Creeks and Tributaries Streambed Sediment

Residual Pool Volume1V* (a ratio) =

Mean values ≤ 0.21 (mean of at least 6 pools 

per sampling reach)

Max values ≤ 0.45 

Median Diameter (D50) of Sediment 

Particles in Spawning Gravels

D50 =

Mean values ≥ 69 mm 

Minimum values ≥ 37 mm

Percent of Fine Fines (< 0.85 mm) in 

Spawning Gravels 

Percent fine fines ≤ 21%

Percent of Coarse Fines (all fines < 

6.0 mm) in Spawning Gravels

Percent coarse fines ≤ 30%

Morro Bay and Estuary

Tidal Prism Volume 4,200 acre-feet

Loading 

Allocations2

(TMDL 

expressed as 

annual load)

Watershed

Total

(tons/year,

rounded to nearest ton)

Chorro Creek at Reservoir 6,541

Dairy Creek

440

Pennington Creek 966

San Luisito Creek 7,315

San Bernardo Creek 10,270

Minor Tributaries 4,489

Chorro Creek 30,021

Los Osos Creek 3,052

Warden Creek and Tributaries

1,812

Los Osos Creek 4,864

Morro Bay Watershed 34,885

 

1 Residual Pool Volume refers to the portion of a pool in a stream that is available for fish to occupy. Pool habitat is the primary habitat for 

steelhead in summer. Overwintering habitat requirements include deeper pools, undercut banks, side channels, and especially large, 

unembedded rocks, which provide shelter for fish against the high flows of winter. V* gives a direct measurement of the impact of sediment 

on pool volume. It is the ratio of the amount of pool volume filled in with fine, mobile sediment, to total scour pool volume. Qualifying pools 

are those having a gradient less than 5%, a minimum depth twice the riffle-crest depth, a fairly even spacing between tributaries, and are 

located on streams fifth order or smaller.

2 These loading allocations are 50% of the estimated current sediment loading to Morro bay.
June 8, 2011 IV-78

Implementation The sediment load to Morro Bay, Los Osos Creek and Chorro Creek derives from 

nonpoint sources (NPS) and point sources. As such, implementation will rely on the 

State’s Plan for NPS pollution control (CWC §13369) and continued implementation of 

existing regulatory controls as appropriate for point sources, including storm water 

pursuant to NPDES surface water discharge regulations and Waste Discharge 

Requirements (Porter Cologne). 

At this time, implementation emphasizes the activities of the Morro Bay National Estuary 

Program, Coastal San Luis Resources Conservation District, and other public and private 

groups that are not currently identified as dischargers responsible for sediment loading, to 

implement self-determined activities (see Table: Trackable Implementation Actions). 

Other actions, currently required because of another program, will be evaluated to make 

sure progress is taking place (see Table: Trackable Implementation Actions identifying 

Responsible Dischargers). Regional Board Staff will meet annually with the implementing 

parties identified in the list of Trackable Implementation Actions to provide technical 

assistance and to evaluate and track progress (see Implementation Schedule for details). 

If at the end of year three, implementing parties fail to complete these self-determined 

activities or resulting management practices fail to reduce sediment loads, then Regional 

Board staff may conduct inspections and investigations to identify individual responsible 

dischargers (e.g., landowners or public agencies). Regional Board staff may rely on 

Section 13267 of the California Water Code or other appropriate authorities for 

investigation and identification of individual responsible dischargers. Regional Board staff 

will also rely on Section 13267 of the California Water Code to require reporting and/or 

monitoring to determine the level of implementation of identified activities to reduce 

erosion and sediment. If necessary, the Regional Board may rely on enforcement 

authority, pursuant to California Water Code Section 13304, to require dischargers to 

clean-up and abate sediment discharges and/or prevent the threat of discharges on a 

case-by case basis. Additionally, Implementation Actions (in the Table of Implementation 

Actions) may be required as conditions of compliance with storm water permits and Waste 

Discharge Requirements.

If at the end of the third year, self-determined actions have not been completed, staff will 

develop a regulatory approach (rather than a self-determined approach) and present a 

revised implementation plan to the Regional Board as a Basin Plan Amendment. 

Direct measurement of sediment loading is not proposed for this TMDL. Numeric Targets, 

which characterize the effect of loading are to be measured in lieu of loadings. The 50-

year schedule for achieving the TMDL acknowledges that implementation actions taken in 

the near term are expected to take years to produce a response as measured through 

Numeric Target monitoring. Allocations will achieve the targets because over the long 

term, these allocated sediment loads are expected to result in changes in sediment 

distributions in the channel and the estuary that meet water quality objectives.

Numeric targets and other parameters will be monitored to ensure that numeric targets 

are met. The Regional Board will rely on existing or planned efforts for this monitoring 

(e.g., Morro Bay National Estuary Program, Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program).

Margin of 

Safety

An implicit margin of safety has been incorporated into this TMDL through the use of 

conservative assumptions throughout the source analysis and characterization of 

beneficial use impacts. The margin of safety is required due to uncertainty in calculations 

of sediment loading and of the effects of this loading on beneficial uses of the Morro Bay 

Estuary, Chorro Creek and Los Osos Creek.
June 8, 2011 IV-79

Trackable Implementation Actions

PROJECT NAME ACTION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTING PARTY

1 Hollister Ranch Acquisition Design and construct 

floodplain restoration 

project

January 2002-

May 2005

CSLRCD and MBNEP

2 Los Osos Creek Wetland 

Restoration Project

Design and construct Los 

Osos Creek wetland 

restoration project 

Fall 2000-Spring 

2004 

CSLRCD and MBNEP

3 Watershed Crew Curriculum Develop a curriculum that 

will provide training for a 

year-round crew of Civilian 

Conservation Corps

Winter 2001-Fall 

2001

CCC

4 Catalogue of Erosion Control 

Projects

Develop a list of areas in 

need of erosion control 

projects

Spring 2001-Fall 

2001; on-going

MBNEP

5 Project Clearwater Provide technical 

assistance and cost 

sharing to install BMPs

2001-June 2004; 

on-going

CSLRCD

6 Agricultural Water Quality 

Program

Develop and implement a 

voluntary, cost-effective, 

and landowner/managerdirected program

2001-2002; ongoingFarm Bureau

7 Land Acquisitions and 

Conservation Easements

Acquire or otherwise 

protect lands in 

cooperation with willing 

land owners

2000-2010; ongoingMBNEP

8 Fire Management Plan Develop and implement a 

Fire Management Plan

2001-2006; ongoingCDF

9 Maintenance of Sediment 

Basins Above Chorro 

Reservoir

Continue maintenance of 

the sediment basins above 

Chorro Reservoir

on-going California Army National 

Guard

10 Road Maintenance Increase the use of 

management measures for 

road maintenance and 

construction

2001-2006; ongoingCounty of San Luis Obispo, 

Public and Private 

Landowners; California 

Department of Transportation

11 Sediment Traps Install sediment traps 2000-2007; ongoingCSLRCD; Natural Resource 

Conservation Service; DFG; 

Public and Private Land 

Owners

PROJECT NAME ACTION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE 

DISCHARGERS

12 Primera Mine Rehabilitation 

and Erosion Control

Remediation of Primera 

Mine

2003 California Army National 

Guard

13 Stormwater Sediment Control 

on Roads

Include specific road 

sediment control 

measures in County 

stormwater management 

plan prior to enrollment in 

Stormwater Permit; track 

implementation of BMPs

Prior to March 

2003; on-going

County of San Luis Obispo

14 Track implementation of 

BMPs in Stormwater 

Permit

On-going Caltrans

15 Water Quality Management 

Plans on Chorro Creek 

Ranches

Implement Waste 

Discharge Requirements 

to address Chorro Creek 

Ranches

Fall 2002-Fall 

2003

California Polytechnic State 

University
June 8, 2011 IV-80

Implementation Schedule 

At End of 

Implementation 

Year:

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITORING ACTIVITY

Chorro Creek Los Osos Creek Morro Bay Chorro 

Creek

Los Osos 

Creek

Morro Bay

1 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress.

RB and County Staff meet to review inclusion of road 

erosion control measures in Stormwater Management 

Plan. 

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters3, Turbidity

2 As above

3 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB requests implementation tracking report from 

Implementing Parties if not provided;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable 

Implementation Actions

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

4 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

5 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to 

review progress

RB Staff calculate: 

5-year changes to 

Bay area and 

volume

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity Bathymetry 

survey

6 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB request implementation tracking report from 

Implementing Parties if not provided; 

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable 

Implementation Actions

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

7 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

8 As above

9 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB request implementation tracking report from 

Implementing Parties if not provided;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable 

Implementation Actions

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

10 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to 

review progress;

RB Staff calculate 10-year rolling 

average of Streambed Sediment 

data

RB Staff calculate: 

5-year changes to 

Bay area and 

volume

Baseline Streambed 

Parameters, Turbidity

Bathymetry 

survey

11 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB Staff calculate 10-year rolling average of Streambed 

Sediment data

Streambed Parameters, 

Turbidity

12 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB Staff calculate 10-year rolling average of Streambed 

Sediment data; 

RB request implementation tracking report from 

Implementing Parties if not provided; 

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable 

Implementation Actions

Streambed Parameters, 

Turbidity

13 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB Staff calculates 10-year rolling average of Streambed 

Sediment data

Streambed Parameters, 

Turbidity

14 As above

 

3 Streambed Parameters, which are the Numeric Targets, include Residual Pool Volume, Median Diameter of Sediment Particles, Percent 

Fine Sediment, and Percent Coarse Sediment.
June 8, 2011 IV-81

At End of 

Implementation 

Year:

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITORING ACTIVITY

15 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to 

review progress;

RB Staff calculate 10-year rolling 

average of Streambed Sediment 

data;

RB request implementation tracking 

report from Implementing Parties if 

not provided;

RB staff consider modifications to 

Trackable Implementation Actions

RB Staff calculate: 

5-year changes to 

Bay area and 

volume

Streambed Parameters

Turbidity

Bathymetry 

survey

16-49 Repeat as above with 3-, 5- and 10-year milestones.

50 Numeric targets achieved; load reduction achieved
June 8, 2011 IV-82

IX. B. SAN LORENZO RIVER TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR 

SEDIMENT (INCLUDING CARBONERA CREEK, LOMPICO CREEK, 

AND SHINGLE MILL CREEK)

This TMDL was adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on May 16, 2003.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on September 16, 2003.

The California Office of Administrative Law on December 18, 2003.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on February 19, 2004.

TMDL ELEMENTS

Problem Statement:

The natural processes of erosion and sedimentation in the San Lorenzo River Watershed have been accelerated 

due to anthropogenic watershed disturbances. Studies conducted by various authors have concluded that erosion 

rates were two to four times natural rates. These studies have also documented and quantified the decline in 

anadromous fisheries and the quality of fish habitat. Excessive Sedimentation has interfered with the beneficial 

uses of these waterbodies including, Fish and Wildlife (RARE, MIGR, SPWN, WILD).

Numeric Targets (interpretation of the narrative water quality objectives for settleable solids and sediment):

Because the sediment objectives in the Basin Plan are narrative, rather than numeric, this Basin Plan amendment 

establishes numeric targets as indicators of water quality that are supportive of beneficial uses. The numeric 

targets serve to interpret the narrative water quality objectives and provide a measure with which to determine if 

the objectives and the TMDL are being met. The combination of these parameters is considered an effective 

approach in lieu of directly measuring sediment loading to the listed waterbodies. Attainment of Numeric Targets 

will be measured over a ten-year rolling time period. Numeric targets for the listed waterbodies and compliance 

points on tributaries are as follows:
June 8, 2011 IV-83

Parameter Numeric Target1

Residual Pool Volume2V* =

Mean values < 0.21

Max values < 0.45

Median Diameter (D50) of Sediment Particles in Spawning 

Gravels

D50 =

Mean values >69 mm 

Minimum values > 37 mm

Percent of Fine Fines (< 0.85 mm) in Spawning Gravels Percent fine fines < 21%

Percent of Coarse Fines (< 6.0 mm) in Spawning Gravels Percent coarse fines < 30%

-------------------------------------------------------------

1 Target values are for sampling reach(es) within an individual waterbody.

2 Residual Pool Volume refers to the portion of a pool in a stream that is available for fish to occupy. Pool habitat is the primary habitat for 

steelhead in summer. Overwintering habitat requirements include deeper pools, undercut banks, side channels, and especially large, 

unembedded rocks, which provide shelter for fish against the high flows of winter. V* gives a direct measurement of the impact of sediment on 

pool volume. It is the ratio of the amount of pool volume filled by fine, mobile sediment, to total pool volume. Qualifying pools are those having 

a gradient less than 5%, a minimum depth twice the riffle-crest depth, a fairly even spacing between tributaries, and are located on streams 

fifth order or smaller.
June 8, 2011 IV-84

Total Maximum Daily Load and Load Allocations

The Total Maximum Daily Load (expressed here as an annual load) was based on reductions necessary to 

achieve desired conditions of streambed sediment parameters (embeddedness and fraction of sediment particles 

less than 4mm in diameter). Desired conditions taken from values published in the scientific literature were 27% 

lower on average for the San Lorenzo River, Carbonera Creek and Shingle Mill Creek, and 24% lower on 

Lompico Creek, than measured values in these waterbodies, respectively. Load allocations were based on 

percent attainable reductions in each sediment source category.

Natural background sediment load was not calculated as a separate allocation of the TMDL. The Mass Wasting 

and Channel/Bank Erosion categories account for natural and anthropogenic loads associated with these 

processes. The load from Timber Harvest Plan Roads, Public/Private Roads, Timber Harvest Plan Lands and 

Other Urban and Rural Lands is assumed to be entirely anthropogenically derived and controllable.

Sediment Source 

Category

Allocations

(tons/year)

Shingle Mill Creek Carbonera Creek Lompico Creek San Lorenzo 

River

Upland Timber Harvest 

Plan (THP) Roads 0 420 362 25,215

Streamside THP Roads 

on Steep Slopes 0 182 164 10,949

Upland Public/Private 

Roads 146 1,233 367 13,835

Streamside Public/Private 

Roads on Steep Slopes 77 135 239 6,178

THP Land 0 23 16 1,057

Other Urban and Rural 

Land 310 2,622 965 43,368

Mass Wasting 0 4,082 6,440 157,388

Channel/Bank Erosion 324 3,030 989 48,149

Total Allocation = TMDL3857 11,728 9,542 306,139

Implementation Plan

The sediment load to the San Lorenzo River, Lompico Creek, Carbonera Creek, and Shingle Mill Creek derives 

from nonpoint sources (NPS) and point sources. As such, implementation to achieve the TMDL will rely on the 

State’s Plan for NPS pollution control (CWC §13369) and on existing and anticipated independent regulatory 

programs for regulated storm water discharges. 

At this time implementation emphasizes the activities of the Santa Cruz County Departments of Planning and 

Public Works, the Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District, and other public and private groups, not 

currently identified as dischargers responsible for causing erosion, to implement self-determined activities 

(Implementation Actions C through R, see following list, Trackable Implementation Actions). Regional Board staff 

will meet annually with these “Implementing Parties” identified in the list of Trackable Implementation Actions to 

provide technical assistance, and to evaluate and track progress (See following Implementation Compliance 

Schedule). 

-------------------------------------------------------------

3 The term “Total Maximum Daily Load” or “TMDL” is used here for familiarity. The allowable loads for the San Lorenzo River and its 

tributaries are actually expressed as a Total Annual Loads (tons/year). This expression of load accounts for seasonal variation in sediment 

loads explained by the seasonality of rainfall in this region of the Central Coast.
June 8, 2011 IV-85

By the end of the first year of implementation, the Regional Board and the implementing parties will establish a 

time schedule for completion of Trackable Implementation Actions C through R. If these entities fail to complete 

these Tier 1, self-determined activities or resulting management practices to reduce sedimentation per the time 

schedule established, Regional Board staff intends to conduct inspections and investigations to identify individual 

responsible dischargers (e.g., landowners or regulated public agencies). Regional Board staff may rely on 

Section 13267 of the California Water Code for investigation and identification of individual responsible 

dischargers. Regional Board staff will also rely on Section 13267 of the California Water Code to require 

reporting and/or monitoring to determine the level of implementation of management practices to reduce 

sedimentation. If necessary, the Regional Board may rely on enforcement authority, pursuant to California Water 

Code Section 13304, to require dischargers to clean up and abate sediment discharges and/or prevent the threat 

of discharges. The Implementation Actions identified in this Implementation Plan do not identify the specific 

management practices that will result in sediment reduction. As such the management practices developed 

through pursuit of the Implementation Actions are not intended to be independently enforceable by the Regional 

Board. Therefore, the Regional Board will rely on scheduled 3-year reviews to track Implementation Actions and 

the effectiveness of management practices to determine whether to continue with Tier 1, self-determined 

implementation. This portion of the implementation program currently relies on voluntary compliance and so is not 

regulatory. If, in future years, evaluation of progress indicates regulatory mechanisms are needed to implement 

actions that will result in attainment of the numeric targets, this will be achieved on a case-by-case basis using 

existing authority or if necessary, by amending the TMDL implementation program through a Basin Plan 

amendment. 

To regulate sediment discharges derived from regulated storm water discharges, implementation relies on 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits covering municipalities and 

construction activities anticipated to be in place by March 2003. Implementation Actions S, T and U (see following 

list, Trackable Implementation Actions) identify actions that will be required of entities enrolling in these general 

permits. These entities are identified as “Responsible Dischargers” on this list. These actions will be required 

pursuant to the terms of the general permits, so this portion of the implementation program also does not impose 

any new regulatory requirements. To the extent the discharge is addressed by a Storm Water Permit, the 

Regional Board anticipates that management practices developed from any of the Implementation Actions (in the 

list of Trackable Implementation Actions) will be included in Storm Water Management Plans and Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plans. If the management practices are not included in these Plans, the Regional Board will 

work with dischargers to condition the Plans on an individual basis, will consider issuing individual Storm Water 

permits or waste discharge requirements, and/or, if necessary take actions to enforce the terms of the permits or 

waste discharge requirements. The Regional Board will take any such actions on a case-by-case basis using 

existing authority or if necessary, by amendment of the TMDL implementation program.

Margin of Safety

A margin of safety has been established implicitly in the TMDL calculation through conservative assumptions 

used in establishing the percent reduction from existing loads necessary to protect beneficial uses.

Monitoring

The TMDL will be evaluated by monitoring the four numeric targets specified above, as well as by tracking 

progress in implementation of voluntary and required implementation actions. Responsibility for tracking, reporting 

status, and evaluating the effectiveness of voluntary implementation actions, is shared by the Regional Board and 

participating members of the San Lorenzo River Technical Advisory Committee. Initially the Regional Board will 

be responsible for monitoring numeric targets. Any monitoring undertaken by members of the Committee, 

including turbidity monitoring by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District and the City of Santa Cruz Water Agency, 

as well as “comprehensive” monitoring of parameters affecting cold water fisheries conducted by various 

agencies, will be on a voluntary basis. Monitoring efforts pursuant to existing or anticipated regulatory programs 

or other voluntary efforts will be evaluated along with monitoring for numeric targets. The Board will evaluate

progress on implementation actions in consultation with the San Lorenzo River Technical Advisory Committee. As 

more information is obtained concerning sources, locations and rates of sedimentation, TMDL numeric targets 

and implementation projects may be amended or modified through an amendment to the Basin Plan, as 

appropriate. 
June 8, 2011 IV-86

Trackable Implementation Actions to Address Sources of Erosion and Sedimentation

Source Category Implementation Action Implementing Party

Roads:

Upland and Streamside

Timber Harvest Plans

A Increase presence at Pre-Harvest Inspections to 100% of Class I and Class II 

watercourses (watercourses supporting use for domestic water supply, fish, 

and/or aquatic habitat for non-fish aquatic species).

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(RWQCB)

B Perform Post-Harvest Inspections 3 to 5 years after harvest on Timber Harvest 

Plans with Class I and Class II watercourse crossings.

RWQCB

C Convene a Working Group of federal, state, and local agencies, and timberland 

owners and foresters to develop specific timber harvesting management practices 

for the San Lorenzo River Watershed.

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), Santa 

Cruz County (County) Planning, RWQCB, 

Timber Owners and Foresters

D Enforce erosion control ordinance following 3-year Timber Harvest Plan 

maintenance period.

County Planning

E Develop strategy for more effective enforcement of County code violations 

pertaining to erosion control and sedimentation prevention throughout the San 

Lorenzo Watershed.

County Planning

F RWQCB will review evidence of Timber Harvest Plan Best Management Practices

developed pursuant to Section 916.9 of 2001 Forest Practices Act during PreHarvest and Post-Harvest Inspections. 

CDF, Timber Harvest Plan Submitter, 

RWQCB

Roads:

Upland and Streamside

Public/Private

E See above

G Create public road database to inventory and prioritize problems for correction. County Public Works, Caltrans, Cities of 

Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley

H Develop a Public Road Maintenance Best Management Practices (BMP) 

Program.

County Public Works and Planning

I Improve public road spoils management and disposal: develop spoils disposal 

site(s) in or near the San Lorenzo Watershed.

County Public Works and Caltrans

J Assess State Park roads and trails for erosion into San Lorenzo River and 

tributaries. Develop a program for funding and addressing any identified problems.

California Department of Parks and 

Recreation

K Develop and implement private road improvement program. Santa Cruz Resource Conservation 

District (RCD)-lead, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, County 

Department of Environmental Health, 

RWQCB, California Department of Fish 

and Game, landowners

Developed Parcels:

THP Lands

A-F See above

E See above
June 8, 2011 IV-87

Source Category Implementation Action Implementing Party

Developed Parcels:

Other Urban and Rural

Land

L Evaluate need to revise erosion control provisions in County Grading Regulations 

and Erosion Control Ordinance to better protect sandy-soil areas.

County Planning

M Evaluate need to revise erosion control provisions in City of Scotts Valley Grading 

Regulations and Erosion Control Ordinance to better protect sandy-soil areas.

City of Scotts Valley

N Evaluate need to revise erosion control provisions in City of Santa Cruz Grading 

Regulations and Erosion Control Ordinance to better protect sandy-soil areas.

City of Santa Cruz

O Promote improved livestock management practices to reduce discharge of 

sediment.

RCD, Santa Cruz Horsemen, County 

Planning, County Environmental Health 

Services, Livestock Owners

P Implement education programs and modify policies and procedures to improve 

riparian corridor protection, maintain channel integrity, implement alternatives to 

hard bank protection, and retain woody material.

County Planning, DFG, Cities

Mass Wasting

Q Develop strategy to reduce erosion from discrete sources, including Mount 

Hermon slide, Bean Creek Road slides, McEnery Road, Skypark, Rancho Rio and 

Monte Fiore.

County, City of Scotts Valley

R Develop strategy to address accelerating the mitigation of quarry impacts at 

Hanson Aggregates site.

County Planning, California Division of 

Mines and Geology

Streambanks A-H, J-N, P See above

Source Category Implementation Action Responsible Dischargers

All Roads, Developed, and 

Developing Parcels

S Develop and implement Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs) and Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) consistent with NPDES Phase II 

Storm Water regulations.

County Planning and Public Works, City 

of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley, 

construction site operators and owners.

T Identify the San Lorenzo River Watershed as a priority for site inspection and 

enforcement of control measures in SWMPs and SWPPPs. Establish mechanism 

by which operators and owners of one-acre and greater construction projects are 

notified of the requirement to prepare SWPPPs.

County Planning and Public Works, City 

of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley, 

construction site operators and owners.

U Consider incorporation of sediment control programs/projects into SWMPs and 

SWPPPs.

County Planning and Public Works, City 

of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley, 

construction site operators and owners.
June 8, 2011 IV-88

Implementation Compliance Schedule

At End of 

Implementation 

Year:

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITORING ACTIVITY4

San Lorenzo River

Mainstem and Tributaries

San Lorenzo River

Mainstem and Tributaries

1 Regional Board (RB) staff and San Lorenzo River Technical Advisory Committee (SLR 

TAC) meet to: a) review progress on implementation actions; b) adopt Comprehensive 

Monitoring Program; and c) establish time schedules for Implementation Actions.

RB and County staff meet to review inclusion of high priority status of San Lorenzo 

Watershed in Stormwater Management Plan.

Refine sampling strategy for 

comprehensive monitoring plan; 

Turbidity by water agencies.

2 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring.

Full suite of Numeric Target 

Parameters at compliance 

points;

Turbidity by water agencies.

3 Implementing Parties submit report on progress of actions;

RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable Implementation Actions;

RB requests implementation tracking report from Implementing Parties if not provided;

Turbidity by water agencies.

4 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions; Turbidity by water agencies.

5 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions; Full suite of Numeric Target 

Parameters at compliance 

points;

Turbidity by water agencies.

6 Implementing Parties submit report on progress of actions;

RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable Implementation Actions;

RB requests implementation tracking report from Implementing Parties if not provided;

Turbidity by water agencies.

7 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions; Turbidity by water agencies.

8 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions; Full suite on compliance points;

Turbidity by water agencies.

9 Implementing Parties submit report on progress of actions;

RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable Implementation Actions;

RB requests implementation tracking report from Implementing Parties if not provided;

Turbidity by water agencies.

10 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions; Turbidity by water agencies.

11 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions;

RB staff calculate 10-year rolling average of streambed sediment data and turbidity;

Full suite of Numeric Target 

Parameters at compliance 

points;

Turbidity by water agencies.

 

4 Direct measurement of sediment loading is not proposed for this TMDL. Parameters characterizing the effect of loading are to be measured instead, and are identified as Numeric Targets. 

This 25-year schedule for achieving the TMDL acknowledges that implementation actions taken in the near term are expected to take years to produce a response as measured through 

Numeric Target monitoring.
June 8, 2011 IV-89

At End of 

Implementation 

Year:

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITORING ACTIVITY4

12 Implementing Parties submit report on progress of actions;

RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable Implementation Actions;

RB requests implementation tracking report from Implementing Parties if not provided;

RB staff calculate 10-year rolling average of streambed sediment data and turbidity;

Turbidity by water agencies.

13 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions;

RB staff calculate 10-year rolling average of streambed sediment data and turbidity;

Turbidity by water agencies.

14 RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions;

RB staff calculate 10-year rolling average of streambed sediment data and turbidity;

Full suite of Numeric Target 

Parameters at compliance 

points;

Turbidity by water agencies.

15 Implementing Parties submit report on progress of actions;

RB staff and SLR TAC meet to review progress on implementation actions and 

monitoring;

RB staff consider modifications to Trackable Implementation Actions;

RB requests implementation tracking report from Implementing Parties if not provided;

RB staff calculate 10-year rolling average of streambed sediment data and turbidity;

Turbidity by water agencies.

16-24 Repeat as above with 1- and 3-year milestones

25 Numeric Targets Achieved;

Load reduction Achieved
June 8, 2011 IV-90

IX. E. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS FOR 

MORRO BAY AND CHORRO AND LOS OSOS CREEKS

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted this TMDL on May 16, 2003.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on September 16, 2003.

The California Office of Administrative Law on November 11, 2003.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on January 20, 2004.

TMDL Elements

Element

Problem 

Statement

Numeric water quality objectives for fecal coliform set by the Regional Board and 

standards enforced by the California Department of Health Services (DHS) pursuant to 

the United States Department of Health Services Food and Drug Administration’s 

National Shellfish Sanitation Program have been exceeded for shellfish harvesting and 

water contact recreation in Morro Bay. Elevated levels of fecal coliform in Morro Bay 

and Chorro and Los Osos Creeks indicate that pathogens are impairing water contact 

recreation and shellfish harvesting in these water bodies. High levels of pathogens 

may cause disease in humans and may also adversely affect marine animals. 

Portions of Morro Bay have been closed by DHS for commercial shellfish harvesting 

since 1996, and advisories have been posted to warn the public to avoid water contact 

activities. Morro Bay was identified as impaired for pathogens on the 1998 Clean 

Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies.

Numeric 

Targets 

Numeric targets for Morro Bay, based on regulations1that DHS follows

Fecal Coliform

Geometric Mean Maximum

14 MPN/100 mLa43 MPN/100 mLb

a: Based on the geometric mean of monthly sampling 

b: No more than 10% of total samples may exceed this number 

Numeric targets for Chorro and Los Osos Creeks and fresh water seeps2to Morro 

Bay, based on Basin Plan objective

Fecal Coliform

Geometric Mean Maximum

200 MPN/100 mLa400 MPN/100 mLb

a: Geometric mean of not less than five samples over a period of 30 days

b: Not more than 10% of total samples during a period of 30 days exceed

____________________________

1 National Shellfish Sanitation Program, Model Ordinance. Chapter IV, 0.02, D

2 Seeps are defined as any surfacing ground water flowing into Morro Bay from the east shore of the Bay, south of Los Osos Creek.
June 8, 2011 IV-91

Allocations 

and TMDL

This TMDL is expressed as concentrations that are equal to the numeric targets. For 

Bay waters, a geometric mean of 14 MPN/100 mL must be achieved and no more 

than 10% of the samples may be over 43 MPN/100 mL for fecal coliform. For 

tributaries (Chorro and Los Osos Creeks and fresh water seeps) to the Bay, the 

geometric mean shall not exceed 200 MPN/100 mL over a 30-day period nor shall 

10% of the samples exceed 400 MPN/100 mL over any 30-day period for fecal 

coliform. Point and nonpoint sources cannot exceed the concentrations specified 

above. Therefore, the wasteload allocations and load allocations, which include 

background levels, are also equal to the numeric targets.

Margin of 

Safety

A margin of safety has been established implicitly through the use of protective 

numeric targets.

Linkage 

Analysis

Allocations are equal to the numeric targets which equal the water quality objectives.

Implementation

The bacterial load to Morro Bay derives from nonpoint sources (NPS) and point 

sources. As such, implementation will rely on the State’s Plan for NPS pollution control 

(CWC §13369) and continued implementation of existing regulatory controls as 

appropriate for point sources, including storm water pursuant to NPDES surface water 

discharge regulations and Waste Discharge Requirements (Porter Cologne). 

Implementation emphasizes the activities of the Morro Bay National Estuary Program, 

Coastal San Luis Resources Conservation District, Farm Bureau, University of 

California Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Public/Private Landowners, Morro Bay Harbor Department, California Department of 

Fish and Game, City of Morro Bay, United States Coast Guard, San Luis Obispo 

County, Division of Animal Services, all of whom are not currently identified as 

dischargers responsible for bacterial loading, to implement self-determined activities 

(see Table: Trackable Implementation Actions (self-determined)). Other actions, 

currently required because of another Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional 

Board) regulatory program, will be evaluated to make sure progress is taking place

(see Table: Trackable Implementation Actions identified under existing regulatory 

programs). Regional Board Staff will meet annually with the implementing parties 

identified in the list of Trackable Implementation Actions Tables to provide technical 

assistance and to evaluate and track progress (see Table: Morro Bay TMDL for 

Pathogens Implementation Schedule for details). If at the end of year three, 

implementing parties fail to complete these self-determined activities and/or resulting 

management practices fail to reduce bacterial loads and/or the numeric targets are not 

being met, then Regional Board staff will conduct inspections and investigations to 

identify individual responsible dischargers (e.g., landowners or public agencies). 

Regional Board staff may rely on Section 13267 of the California Water Code for 

investigation and identification of individual responsible dischargers. Regional Board 

staff will also rely on Section 13267 of the California Water Code to require reporting 

and/or monitoring to determine the level of implementation of identified activities to 

reduce bacteria. If necessary, the Regional Board may rely on enforcement authority, 

pursuant to California Water Code Section 13304, to require dischargers to clean-up 

and abate bacterial discharges and/or prevent the threat of discharges on a case-by 

case basis. Additionally, Implementation Actions (in the Table of Implementation 

Actions) may be identified as conditions of compliance with storm water permits and 

Waste Discharge Requirements.

If at the end of the third year, self-determined actions have not been initiated, staff will 

develop a regulatory approach (rather than a self-determined approach) and present a 

revised implementation plan to the Regional Board as a Basin Plan Amendment.

Monitoring Monitoring will be performed and evaluated by the DHS according to their regulations, 

the Morro Bay National Estuary Volunteer Program and the Regional Board to ensure 
June 8, 2011 IV-92

that numeric targets are met and implementation actions are taking place. Should the 

Morro Bay National Estuary Volunteer Program be unable to sample, the Regional 

Board will sample to the extent practicable. Regional Board staff will review data on a 

triennial basis, at a minimum, and determine if progress towards fecal coliform 

reduction is adequate and whether changes to implementation actions are warranted 

(as described above). 
June 8, 2011 IV-93

Trackable Implementation Actions (self-determined)

PROJECT NAME ACTION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTING 

PARTIES

Grazing 

Management

Implement grazing 

management measures 

that reduce bacterial 

levels

Ongoing -

2012

MBNEP, CSLRCD, Farm 

Bureau, UCCE, NRCS, 

Public/Private Landowners

Boat Management, 

Pump-outs

Upgrade pump-out 

facilities, provide new 

facilities, improve 

accessibility

2002-2005 MBHD

Remove 

unpermitted 

moorings

Remove illegal 

moorings and prevent 

future ones

Ongoing -

2007

CDFG, MBNEP

Remove derelict 

boats

Remove abandoned, 

derelict boats and 

vessels in back bay

Ongoing -

2007

CDFG, MBNEP

Manage live 

aboard boating 

situation

Continue issuing 

permits to live aboards, 

continue with 

inspections

Ongoing -

2012

City of Morro Bay, USCG, 

CDFG, MBHD

Educate Public 

about proper boat 

waste disposal

Educate public about 

proper waste disposal

Ongoing -

2012

MBNEP, MBHD

Pet waste 

management

Create an off leash dog 

park, provide supplies 

to pick-up pet waste, 

ordinance

Ongoing -

2012

MBNEP, City of Morro 

Bay, San Luis Obispo 

County

Septic System 

Maintenance

Inspect and maintain all 

septic systems 

throughout the 

watershed

2004 -

continuous

San Luis Obispo County, 

LOCSD

Spay/neuter pets Educate public to 

promote spaying and 

neutering pets

Ongoing -

2012

Division of animal services

Reduce the 

number of feral 

dogs/cats

Reduce the number of 

feral dogs/cats

Ongoing -

2012

Division of animal 

services, feral cat 

caretakers

CDFG – California Department of Fish and Game

CSLRCD – Coastal San Luis Resources Conservation District

MBHD – Morro Bay Harbor Department

MBNEP – Morro Bay National Estuary Program

NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service

UCCE – University of California Cooperative Extension

USCG – United States Coast Guard

LOCSD – Los Osos Community Services District
June 8, 2011 IV-94

Trackable Implementation Actions (under existing regulatory programs)

PROJECT NAME ACTION SCHEDULE RESPONSIBLE 

DISCHARGERS

Phase II 

stormwater permit 

Incorporate actions to 

reduce bacteria loading 

into Morro Bay by 

implementing a 

stormwater 

management plan for 

the City of Morro Bay 

and the Community of 

Los Osos

March 2003 

- 2008

City of Morro Bay

LOCSD, San Luis Obispo 

County

Los Osos 

Community Waste 

Water Treatment 

Plant 

Construct and maintain 

a wastewater treatment 

plant pursuant to Waste 

Discharge 

Requirements, R3-

2003-0007, Waste 

Discharge Identification 

no. 3 401078001

Ongoing -

2007

LOCSD
June 8, 2011 IV-95

Implementation Schedule for Morro Bay TMDL for Pathogens

At End of 

Implementation Year:

IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITORING 

ACTIVITY

Chorro 

Creek 

TMDL

Los Osos 

Creek 

TMDL

Morro 

Bay

TMDL

1 RWQCB evaluates data collected over past year, evaluates progress on 

actions

Meet with VMP, MBNEP, LOCSD, City of MB, County of SLO, DHS, MBHD, 

State Parks, CDFG, Farm Bureau to discuss progress

LOCSD waste water treatment plant WDR issued

Submittal of stormwater management plan and permit coverage (City of MB, 

LOCSD)

Fecal coliform

2 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

3 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

Regional Board evaluates the monitoring of septic system maintenance in 

the watershed with the County of San Luis Obispo

RWQCB, MBNEP, VMP, LOCSD, City of MB, County of SLO, DHS, MBHD, 

State Parks, CDFG, Farm Bureau meet to determine TMDL progress.

4 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

5 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

6 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

LOCSD sewer installed

RWQCB, MBNEP, VMP, LOCSD, City of MB, County of SLO, DHS, MBHD, 

State Parks, CDFG, Farm Bureau meet to determine TMDL progress

7 RWQCB evaluates data collected; evaluates progress on actions

8 RWQCB evaluates data collected and evaluates progress on actions

REC-1 

standards 

achieved 

REC-1 

standards 

achieved 

DHS 

Standards, 

SHELL 

achieve

d 

9 RWQCB evaluates data collected and evaluates progress on actions

RWQCB, MBNEP, VMP, LOCSD, City of MB, County of SLO, DHS, MBHD, 

State Parks, CDFG, Farm Bureau meet to determine TMDL progress

10 RWQCB evaluates data collected and evaluates progress on actions

Load Reduction Achieved; Numeric Targets Achieved

CDFG – California Department of Fish and Game

DHS – Department of Health Services

LOCSD – Los Osos Community Services District

MB – Morro Bay

MBHD – Morro Bay Harbor Department

MBNEP – Morro Bay National Estuary Program

RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board

SLO – San Luis Obispo

VMP – Volunteer Monitoring Program

WDR – Waste Discharge Requirements
June 8, 2011 IV-96

IX. G. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR PATHOGENS FOR 

SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted this TMDL on December 3, 2004.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on May 19, 2005.

The California Office of Administrative Law on July 25, 2005. (Effective date)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on September 23, 2005.

Problem Statement

The beneficial uses of non-contact water recreation and water contact recreation are not being supported 

because fecal coliform concentration in San Luis Obispo Creek exceeds existing Basin Plan numeric objectives 

protecting these beneficial uses. 

Numeric Target

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period,

shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100mL, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples collected 

during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100mL.

Source Analysis

The fecal coliform sources contributing to the problems identified in the Problem Statement are, in decreasing 

order of contribution: urban, human, birds and bats roosting in the tunnel, livestock, and background. DNA 

analysis of samples drawn between sites 10.3 and 10.9 (see map in Figure-1) in San Luis Obispo Creek indicate 

that the following sources and corresponding frequencies are present: human (41%), avian (17%), combined 

sewer overflow (15%), canine (11%), rodent (5%), dog (4%), raccoon (3%), feline (3%), opossum (1%).

TMDL and Allocations

The TMDL is a receiving water concentration equal to the numeric target. The TMDL is considered achieved 

when the allocations assigned to individual reaches are consistently met or numeric targets are consistently met 

in all reaches. 

Allocations are expressed as receiving water fecal coliform concentration. Table-1 shows the allocations with 

respect to location and responsible party. The reaches referred to in Table-1 are illustrated in Figure-1. 

Locations of the sites illustrated in Figure-1 are described as follows:

Site 10.0: located along the main stem of San Luis Obispo Creek (Creek) at the bridge crossing the Creek on 

Marsh Street. This location is downstream of the confluence of the main stem of the Creek with Stenner 

Creek.

Site 10.3: located along the main stem of the Creek at Mission Plaza, immediately downstream of the 

downstream end of the tunnel.

Site 10.9: located along the main stem of the Creek at the upstream end of the tunnel. 

STEN0.0: located at the mouth of Stenner Creek before its confluence with San Luis Obispo Creek.

STEN1.5: located in Stenner Creek at its crossing with Highland Drive on the campus of Cal Poly.

BRIZ1.0: located in Brizziolari Creek at its crossing with Via Carte Drive on Cal Poly campus; this site is 

located downstream of the bull-test animal unit.

Site 12.5: located along the main stem of the Creek at Cuesta Park near the Highway 101 bridge.

Waste Load Allocations: Allocations to the City of San Luis Obispo are waste load allocations (WLAs). The WLAs 

will be implemented by the City’s NPDES permit for the Water Reclamation Facility for control of sewer sources. 

The WLAs will also be implemented by the City’s General Municipal Stormwater permit for the control of urban 

sources as well as animal sources from the tunnelized area of the Creek. 

Allocations to the County of San Luis Obispo are WLAs. The WLAs will be implemented by the County’s General 

Municipal Stormwater permit for the control of urban sources. 
June 8, 2011 IV-97

A portion of the total allocation to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) is a WLA. 

The allocation at site STEN1.5 shown in Table-1 is a WLA. The WLA will be implemented by Cal Poly’s General 

Municipal Stormwater permit for the control of urban sources.

Load Allocations: Cal Poly is allocated a load allocation (LA) for the livestock sources along Brizziolari Creek. 

The LA will be implemented by Cal Poly’s WDR permit for the control of animal sources (see site BRIZ1.0 in 

Table-1).

Allocation for Background: The allocation to Background is included in the WLAs and LA. The background 

allocation is a receiving water concentration of 81 MPN/100 mL. Therefore, the allocations in Table-1 include the 

allocation to background.

#

#

#

#

#

#

Briz iolari Cr.

Sten er Cr.

Garden Cr.

Site 10.0

STEN0.0

Site 10.3

STEN1.5

BRIZ1.0

San Luis O bispo Cr

S .ite 10.9

#

Site 12.5

Figure-1: Allocation Sites
June 8, 2011 IV-98

Table-1 ALLOCATIONS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Allocations in San Luis Obispo Creek Receiving Water

Fecal Coliform

Concentration

(MPN/100mL) From 1

Site:

To Upstream

Site:

Responsible 

Party 2, 3, 4

Allocation

Type5

12.5

All upstream 

sites County WLA

10.9 12.0 City WLA

10.0 10.9 City WLA

Allocations in Stenner and Brizziolari Creeks Receiving Water

Fecal Coliform

Concentration

(MPN/100mL)1

From

Site:

To Upstream

Site:

Responsible

Party 2, 3, 4

Allocation

Type5

STEN1.5

All upstream 

sites Cal Poly WLA

STEN0.0 STEN1.5 City WLA

BRIZ1.0

All upstream 

sites Cal Poly LA

Allocations for reaches not specifically noted above:

For stream reaches not specifically noted above, the allocation for any discharge loading fecal 

coliform into San Luis Obispo Creek or any of its tributaries is as follows:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day 

period, shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100mL, nor shall more than 10% of the total 

samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100mL. 

1

As log mean of 5 samples taken in a 30-day period occurring within each season.

2 County implies County of San Luis Obispo

3 City implies City of San Luis Obispo

4 Cal Poly implies California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Campus

5 WLA implies Waste Load Allocation, LA implies Load Allocation

Margin of Safety

A margin of safety is incorporated in the TMDL through conservative assumptions. The conservative 

assumptions include: 1) assumption of zero bacterial die-off, 2) TMDL and allocation calculations are 

predominantly based on data collected during low-flow conditions, which, in the case of San Luis Obispo Creek, 

skews towards a worst-case scenario.

IMPLEMENTATION 

The following actions will occur within one year of TMDL approval by the Office of Administrative Law.

HUMAN SOURCES

The City will implement actions described in Table 3, item 1F, to control human sources as currently required by 

the NPDES permit for the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).

The Executive Officer (EO) or the Regional Board will amend the Monitoring and Reporting Program (M&RP) of 

the City’s NPDES permit for the WRF to incorporate stream monitoring for fecal coliform. The EO or Regional 

Board will also amend the M&RP to incorporate reporting of such stream monitoring activities. 

URBAN SOURCES

The City will amend its Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to include actions described in Table-3, items 

1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, pursuant to Section D of State Board Order No. 2003-005, NPDES General Permit No. 

CAS000004 for Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Small MS4 

Permit). The City will then describe the actions taken in Table-3 as part of its annual report required by the Small 

MS4 Permit. If the City does not make these changes by submittal of the next annual report, the Executive Officer 

will require such changes.
June 8, 2011 IV-99

The Executive Officer or the Regional Board will amend the Monitoring and Reporting Program of the City’s small 

MS4 Permit to incorporate stream monitoring of fecal coliform and reporting of such monitoring, if additional 

monitoring-beyond that amended to the Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City’s NPDES Permit for the 

WRF-is necessary.

Cal Poly will amend their SWMP to include specific actions described in Table-3, items 3A, 3B, and 3D. Cal Poly 

will then describe actions taken in Table-3 as part of their annual report required by the Small MS4 Permit. If Cal 

Poly does not make these changes by submittal of next annual report for this permit, the Executive Officer will 

require such changes.

The County of San Luis Obispo (County) will amend its SWMP to include specific actions described in Table-3, 

items 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D, pursuant to Section D of the Small MS4 Permit. The County will then describe actions 

taken in Table-3 as part of its annual report required by the Small MS4 Permit. If the County does not make these 

changes by submittal of next annual report for this permit, the Executive Officer will require such changes.

LIVESTOCK SOURCES

Cal Poly will eliminate discharges of animal waste from seepage to surface waters from irrigated wastewater and 

flow to surface waters from confined animal operations, as currently required by Cal Poly’s Waste Discharge 

Requirements. 

Cal Poly has agreed to use management practices described in Table-3, item 3C, as described in its Water 

Quality Management Plan. 

Cal Poly will conduct stream monitoring and report results as currently required by the M&RP of Cal Poly’s Waste 

Discharge Requirements. 

Additionally, the EO will amend the M&RP associated with Cal Poly’s Waste Discharge Requirements to require 

annual reporting of specific measures that have been identified in the Water Quality Management Plan and have 

been and/or will be taken to reduce fecal coliform loading from livestock and urban sources.

THREE-YEAR REVIEWS

Regional Board staff will conduct a review every three years beginning three years after TMDL approval by the 

Office of Administrative Law. Regional Board staff will utilize Annual Reports, as well as other available 

information, to review water quality data and implementation efforts of responsible parties and progress being 

made towards achieving the allocations and the numeric target. Regional Board staff may conclude and articulate 

that ongoing implementation efforts may be insufficient to ultimately achieve the allocations and numeric target. If 

staff makes this determination, staff will recommend that additional reporting, monitoring, or implementation 

efforts be required either through approval by the Executive Officer (e.g. pursuant to CWC section 13267 or 

section 13383) or by the Regional Board (e.g. through revisions of existing permits and/or a Basin Plan 

Amendment). Regional Board staff may conclude and articulate that to date, implementation efforts and results 

are likely to result in achieving the allocations and numeric target, in which case existing and anticipated 

implementation efforts should continue. 

Three-year reviews will continue until the TMDL is achieved. The target date to achieve the TMDL is ten years 

after implementation commences.
June 8, 2011 IV-100

Table-3 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS OF RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

Responsible 

Party

Item Best Management 

Practice

Discussion

City of San Luis 

Obispo

1A Public Participation and 

Outreach

Educate the public regarding sources of fecal coliform 

and associated health risks of fecal coliform in surface 

waters. Educate the public regarding actions that 

individuals can take to reduce loading.

1B Pet Waste Management Develop and implement enforceable means (e.g. an 

ordinance) of reducing/eliminating fecal coliform 

loading from pet waste.

1C Wild Animal Waste 

Management

Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from wild animals inhabiting the 

tunnelized area of the Creek.

1D Illicit Discharge Detection 

and Elimination

Develop and implement strategies to detect and 

eliminate illicit discharges (whether mistaken or 

deliberate) of sewage to the Creek.

1E Pollution Prevention and 

Good Housekeeping

Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from streets, parking lots, 

sidewalks, and other urban areas potentially collecting 

and discharging fecal coliform to the Creek.

1F Human Source 

Elimination and 

Prevention

Maintain the sewage collection system, including 

identification of sewage leaks, the correction of sewage 

leaks, and prevention of sewage leaks.

County of San Luis 

Obispo 

2A Public Participation and 

Outreach

Educate the public regarding sources of fecal coliform 

and associated health risks of fecal coliform in surface 

waters. Educate the public regarding actions that 

individuals can take to reduce loading.

2B Pet Waste Management Develop and implement enforceable means (e.g. an 

ordinance) of reducing/eliminating fecal coliform 

loading from pet waste.

2C Illicit Discharge Detection 

and Elimination

Develop and implement strategies to detect and 

eliminate illicit discharges (whether mistaken or 

deliberate) of sewage to the Creek.

2D Pollution Prevention and 

Good Housekeeping

Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from streets, parking lots, 

sidewalks, and other urban areas potentially collecting 

and discharging fecal coliform to the Creek.

Cal Poly State 

University

3A Public Participation and 

Outreach

Educate the public regarding sources of fecal coliform 

and associated health risks of fecal coliform in surface 

waters. Educate the public regarding actions that 

individuals can take to reduce loading.

3B Pet Waste Management Develop and implement enforceable means of 

reducing/eliminating fecal coliform loading from pet 

waste.

3C Grazing Management Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from livestock grazing.

3D Pollution Prevention and 

Good Housekeeping

Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from streets, parking lots, 

sidewalks, and other urban areas potentially collecting 

and discharging fecal coliform to the Creek.
June 8, 2011 IV-101

IX. G. SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD 

AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR NITRATE-NITROGEN

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted this TMDL on September 9, 2005.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on June 21, 2006.

The California Office of Administrative Law on August 4, 2006. (Effective date)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on January 10, 2007.

Problem Statement

The municipal and domestic supply of water beneficial use (MUN) is not being supported because nitrate-N 

concentrations in San Luis Obispo Creek exceed the existing Basin Plan numeric objective protecting the MUN 

beneficial use. 

Numeric Target

The numeric target used to calculate the TMDL is a nitrate-N concentration of 10 mg/L-N.

Source Analysis

Nitrate-N sources contributing to the problem identified in the Problem Statement are, in decreasing order of 

contribution: City of San Luis Obispo Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), croplands, background, reservoirs, and 

residential areas. 

TMDL and Allocations

The TMDL is a receiving water nitrate-N concentration equal to the numeric target. The following allocations are 

necessary to achieve the TMDL.

Wasteload Allocations:

 City of San Luis Obispo WRF effluent: The monthly mean nitrate-N concentration of effluent shall not 

exceed 10 mg/L-N.

Load Allocations:

 Croplands in Prefumo Creek Watershed: shall not cause nitrate-N concentration in receiving waters to 

exceed 10 mg/L-N. 

 Background: Nitrate concentration of 0.1 mg/L-N.

Load and wasteload allocations to sources currently meeting water quality standards:

 The following wasteload and load allocations ensure that the receiving water will achieve compliance with 

water quality standards at the earliest possible date, continue to meet water quality standards after the 

above wasteload and load allocations are attained, and comply with state and federal anti-degradation 

requirements. 

o Residential Sources Wasteload Allocation: 

 Storm water discharge shall not cause an increase in receiving water nitrate-N 

concentration greater than the current increase in nitrate-N concentration resulting from 

the discharge. 

o Reservoir Sources Load Allocation (Laguna Lake): 

 Reservoir discharge shall not cause an increase in receiving water nitrate-N 

concentration greater than the current increase in nitrate-N concentration resulting from 

the discharge.

Margin of Safety: Nitrate concentration of 2.2 mg/L-N. 

IMPLEMENTATION 
June 8, 2011 IV-102

The following actions will be taken to implement the TMDL.

WRF Source:

 The Central Coast Water Board will incorporate an effluent limit for nitrate-N in the City of San Luis 

Obispo’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES permit) for the WRF, consistent 

with the allocations described in the Wasteload Allocations section above. The effluent limit will be 

incorporated in the NPDES permit at the first permit renewal following TMDL approval by the Central 

Coast Water Board (expected in May 2007).

 The Central Coast Water Board intends to issue a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) or Time Schedule 

Order to the WRF concurrently with the NPDES permit, requiring the WRF to reduce nitrate-N 

concentration in the effluent. The CDO will contain a time schedule establishing the time allowed to 

comply with the order.

 The Central Coast Water Board will consider a revision of the wasteload allocation and corresponding 

effluent limit for the WRF if an amendment to the Basin Plan removing or revising the MUN beneficial use 

and corresponding numeric objective for nitrate is approved by USEPA. 

Residential Source (Storm water):

 The City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo, and Cal Poly State University will implement 

management practices consistent with and required by Small MS4 Permits regulating storm water 

discharge in San Luis Obispo Creek watershed, and will submit annual reports as required by such 

permits. If implementation actions are insufficient to achieve the TMDL, additional implementation actions 

will be required through approval by the Executive Officer (e.g., pursuant to CWC section 13267 or 

section 13383) or by the Central Coast Water Board (e.g., by requiring revisions of existing storm water 

management plans and/or a Basin Plan Amendment).

Reservoir Source

 Implementation measures to achieve the allocation to the reservoir source are carried out through the 

Residential Source (Storm water) implementation actions. 

Cropland Source:

 Landowners and operators of irrigated lands in Prefumo Creek watershed will implement actions needed 

to achieve the allocations to croplands pursuant to the Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge 

Requirements for Discharges to Irrigated Lands (Conditional Waiver). Implementation and monitoring 

requirements for parties engaged in agricultural activities are consistent with, and rely upon, the 

Conditional Waiver. 

 Monitoring reports and data associated with the Conditional Waiver, as well as other information, will be 

used to determine whether management measures being taken are sufficient to achieve the TMDL by the 

year 2012. Central Coast Water Board staff will make this determination every three years as described 

in the Tracking and Monitoring section below. If implementation actions are insufficient to achieve the 

TMDL, additional implementation actions will be required through approval by the Executive Officer (e.g., 

pursuant to CWC section 13267 or section 13383) or by the Central Coast Water Board; the Executive 

Officer or the Central Coast Water Board will approve of additional actions as soon as practicable.

Monitoring

The following actions will be taken to implement monitoring requirements.

 The Executive Officer (EO) or the Central Coast Water Board will amend the Monitoring and Reporting 

Program (M&RP) of the City’s NPDES permit for the WRF to incorporate effluent and stream monitoring 

for nitrate-N, and to incorporate reporting of these monitoring activities. The City of San Luis Obispo will 

comply with the amended M&RP as soon as the EO or the Water Board issues the revised program 

(anticipated to occur at the next permit renewal following TMDL approval by the Central Coast Water 

Board [expected in May 2007]).

 Implementation and monitoring requirements for parties engaged in agricultural activities are consistent 

with, and rely upon, the Conditional Waiver. 

Tracking and Monitoring
June 8, 2011 IV-103

 Central Coast Water Board staff will conduct a review of implementation activities every three years, 

beginning three years after TMDL approval by the Office of Administrative Law, unless funding is 

unavailable. Central Coast Water Board staff will utilize annual reports associated with Small MS4 

permits, as well as other available information, to review water quality data and implementation efforts of 

implementing parties and progress being made towards achieving the allocations and the numeric target. 

Central Coast Water Board staff may conclude that ongoing implementation efforts may be insufficient to 

ultimately achieve the allocations and numeric target. If staff makes this determination, staff will 

recommend that additional reporting, monitoring, or implementation efforts be required either through 

approval by the Executive Officer (e.g., pursuant to CWC section 13267 or section 13383) or by the 

Central Coast Water Board (e.g., through revisions of existing permits and/or a Basin Plan Amendment). 

Central Coast Water Board staff may conclude that to date, implementation efforts and results are likely 

to result in achieving the allocations and numeric target, in which case existing and anticipated 

implementation efforts will continue. 

Three-year reviews will continue until the TMDL is achieved, unless funding is unavailable. The target 

date to achieve the TMDL is during or before the year 2012. 
June 8, 2011 IV-104

IX. H. PAJARO RIVER TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR 

SEDIMENT INCLUDING LLAGAS CREEK, RIDER CREEK, AND 

SAN BENITO RIVER

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted this TMDL on December 2, 2005.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on September 21, 2006.

The California Office of Administrative Law on November 27, 2006. (Effective date)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on May 3, 2007.

Problem Statement

Anthropogenic watershed disturbances have accelerated the natural processes of erosion and sedimentation in 

the Pajaro River, including Llagas Creek, Rider Creek, and San Benito River. Special studies have identified a 

variety of watershed conditions that have lead to excessive sedimentation. Excessive sedimentation has caused 

an exceedance of the narrative, general water quality objective for sediment because sediment load and rate 

have interfered with the beneficial uses of these waterbodies including, fish and wildlife (COLD, MIGR, and 

SPWN).

The narrative objective states, “the suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface 

waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.”

Numeric Targets (interpretation of the narrative water quality objective)

This TMDL establishes numeric targets as indicators of the narrative, general water quality objective for sediment. 

This TMDL uses two types of numeric targets: suspended sediment concentration-duration and streambed 

characteristics. Numeric targets for suspended sediment concentration-duration are presented in Table 1. 

Numeric targets for streambed characteristics are presented in Table 2.
June 8, 2011 IV-105

Table 1 - Numeric Targets for Suspended Sediment Conditions 

Major

Subwatershed a

Exposure Category b Exceedance Event Criteria Numeric Targets c

Duration 

(consecutive 

days)

Suspended 

Sediment 

Concentration 

Range

(mg/L) d

Duration 

(consecutive 

days)

Suspended 

Sediment 

Concentration

(mg/L)

Maximum Number of 

Exceedance Events 

Maximum Duration 

of any given 

Exceedance Event 

(consecutive days) 

Tres Pinos 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 15 22

2 245 – 665 3 >665 42 44

6 91 – 244 7 >244 36 51

14 91 – 244 15 >244 20 51

49 33 – 90 50 >90 5 108

San Benito 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 9 9

2 245 – 665 3 >665 30 21

6 91 – 244 7 >244 29 35

14 91 – 244 15 >244 14 35

49 33 – 90 50 >90 2 60

Llagas 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 0 0

2 245 – 665 3 >665 0 1

6 91 – 244 7 >244 9 15

14 91 – 244 15 >244 1 15

49 33 – 90 50 >90 0 28

Uvas 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 1 3

2 245 – 665 3 >665 12 8

6 91 – 244 7 >244 12 15

14 91 – 244 15 >244 1 15

49 33 – 90 50 >90 0 18

Upper Pajaro 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 0 1

2 245 – 665 3 >665 3 3

6 91 – 244 7 >244 2 9

14 91 – 244 15 >244 0 9

49 33 – 90 50 >90 0 33

Corralitos 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 0 1

(includes Rider 2 245 – 665 3 >665 0 2

Creek) 6 91 – 244 7 >244 8 11

14 91 – 244 15 >244 0 11

49 33 – 90 50 >90 0 36

Mouth of 1 666 – 1808 2 >1808 0 1

Pajaro 2 245 – 665 3 >665 0 2

6 91 – 244 7 >244 8 11

14 91 – 244 15 >244 0 11

49 33 – 90 50 >90 0 36

a

 Major subwatersheds of the Pajaro River.

b Five exposure categories per major subwatershed. Each exposure category is comprised two components: a duration (consecutive days) 

and a suspended sediment concentration (SSC) range in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

c Numeric targets are comprised of two components: a maximum number of exceedance events that may occur in any consecutive 15 

years after development of the monitoring program and the maximum duration (consecutive days) in which the maximum SSC value for 

each range can be exceeded in 15 years. Exceedance events are specific to each exposure category and consist of consecutive days in 

which the duration and the maximum SSC value for each range is exceeded. Using the exposure category of 1-day, 666-1,808 mg/l SSC 

range for Tres Pinos as an example; the maximum number of exceedance events (e.g. 2-days or longer and greater than 1,808 mg/L) is 

15. The maximum duration is 22 days. Using the same Tres Pinos example, numeric targets are not met if the number of exceedance 

events is 16 (or more) or if the maximum duration of any event is 23 consecutive days or longer.

d Numbers rounded to show measurable break in the range.
June 8, 2011 IV-106

Table 2 - Numeric Targets for Streambed Characteristics

Parameter Numeric Target1

Residual Pool Volume2V* =

Mean values < 0.21

Max values < 0.45

Median Diameter (D50) of Sediment Particles in 

Spawning Gravels

D50 =

Mean values > 69 mm 

Minimum values > 37 mm

Percent of Fine Fines (< 0.85 mm) in Spawning 

Gravels 

Percent fine fines < 21%

Percent of Coarse Fines (< 6.0 mm) in Spawning 

Gravels

Percent coarse fines < 30%

1 Target values are for sampling reach(es) within an individual waterbody.

2 Residual Pool Volume refers to the portion of a pool in a stream that is available for fish to occupy. Pool habitat is the primary habitat for 

steelhead in summer. Overwintering habitat requirements include deeper pools, undercut banks, side channels, and especially large, 

unembedded rocks, which provide shelter for fish against the high flows of winter. V* gives a direct measurement of the impact of sediment 

on pool volume. It is the ratio of the amount of pool volume filled by fine, mobile sediment, to total pool volume. Qualifying pools are 

defined by Regional Board sampling protocol (2002).

Source Analysis

Sources of sediment include the following nonpoint and point source discharge activities occurring within the 

respective land use source categories. Nonpoint sources include irrigated agriculture activities upon crop, fallow 

and orchard lands; timber harvesting activities upon forested lands; grazing activities upon pasture and range 

lands; urban and rural residential development, roads, farm animal and livestock boarding upon urban lands; 

unpaved roads in the San Benito watershed, and paved and unpaved roads in the Corralitos Creek and Rider 

Creek watersheds upon lands in the roads landuse category; hydromodification-related activities upon all types of 

land use; off-road recreational vehicle areas; sand and gravel mining; as well as natural erosion and landslides. 

Point sources include the small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) of Watsonville, Hollister, 

Gilroy, and Morgan Hill. 

 

TMDLs and Allocations

TMDLs and load allocations are assigned to sources for seven watersheds as represented in Table 3. These 

allocations are modeled load values that are necessary to meet the suspended sediment concentration-duration 

targets. The Regional Board will determine that the TMDL is attained when the numeric targets are achieved. 

When numeric targets are achieved, the Regional Board will assume that these loads are met.

Margin of Safety

The total load includes an implicit margin of safety that was derived through conservative assumptions.
June 8, 2011 IV-107

Table 3 – TMDLs and Load Allocations

Source Category

Major 

Subwatershed

Allocations1

(LA/WLA)

Crop,

Fallow,

and Orchard

Forest 2 Pasture and 

Range Urban Lands 3 Roads Barren 2

Sand and 

Gravel 

Mining

Total

Load

Tres Pinos LA 477 352 41085 312 11551

53,778

WLA 1

San Benito LA 1971 2083 19863 327 1180 14128 27

39,679

WLA 100

Llagas LA 596 326 6978 354 144 0

9,185

WLA 787

Uvas LA 946 989 12454 280 369

15,177

WLA 139

Upper Pajaro LA 4114 1228 37664 356 425 3

43,951

WLA 161

Corralitos LA 3544 4536 2427 443 79 73 2

11,3894

(including Rider 

Creek) WLA 284

Mouth of Pajaro LA 3047 58 3055 383 500 35

7,2684

WLA 191

Notes:

1 Annual load allocations (LA) and waste load allocations (WLA) expressed in metric tons (1 metric ton equals 1,000 

kilograms). Blank cells indicate no allocations for specified source category.

2 Forest includes loads from natural sources and from timber harvesting operations; Barren includes loads from natural 

sources only.

3 Load allocations for urban lands outside of NPDES Phase 2 urban boundaries. Waste load allocations for urban lands within 

NPDES Phase 2 urban boundaries.

4 Number rounded.

Implementation

The following actions will be taken to reduce sediment discharges from activities that occur within each of the land 

use source categories (headings) below. Regional Board staff intends to identify and notify the parties 

responsible for the activities according to the schedule below; however, if staff resources are insufficient or other 

water quality priorities emerge, this schedule will be modified.

Crop, Fallow, and Orchard Lands

Landowners and operators of crop, fallow, and orchard lands, where irrigated agricultural activities are conducted, 

will implement agricultural management measures and perform monitoring and reporting pursuant to the 

Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands and the Monitoring and 

Reporting Program, Order No. R3-2004-0117. This is an existing, on-going activity.

Forest Lands

Landowners and operators of forest lands, where timber harvest activities are conducted, will implement timber 

harvest management measures and perform monitoring and reporting pursuant to the General Conditional Waiver 
June 8, 2011 IV-108

of Waste Discharge Requirements for Timber Harvest Activities and the Monitoring and Reporting Program, Order 

No. R3-2005-0066. This is an existing, on-going activity.

Pasture and Range

Owners and operators of pasture and range lands, where grazing activities occur, must comply with the land 

disturbance prohibition.

Within one year following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify the owners and operators of pasture and range lands of the prohibition and conditions for compliance with 

the prohibition. The Executive Officer will review and approve, or request modification of, the Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Control Implementation Program (Program) or documentation submitted in compliance with the 

prohibition within six months of the submittal date. Should the Program or documentation require modification, or 

if a party fails to submit a Program or documentation, the Executive Officer may issue a civil liability complaint 

pursuant to section 13268 or 13350 of the CWC, or alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge 

requirements to assure compliance with the prohibition.

Urban Lands

Urban lands include the small communities of Watsonville, Hollister, Gilroy, and Morgan Hill (cities), rural 

properties throughout the watershed with farm animals or livestock boarding (rural properties), and roads 

throughout the watershed. These lands do not include unpaved roads in San Benito River watershed, and paved 

and unpaved roads within the Corralitos Creek and Rider Creek subwatersheds (See Roads below).

The cities must obtain a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. Their Storm Water Management 

Programs must include specific actions to reduce sediment discharges pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 

402(p)(3)(B) and Section D of State Board Order No. 2003-005, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000004 for 

Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. The cities will then describe the 

actions taken as part of their annual report. If necessary, the Regional Board’s Executive Officer can require 

more stringent sediment controls. This is an existing requirement and an on-going activity.

Owners and operators of rural properties and roads must comply with the land disturbance prohibition.

Within one year following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify the owners and operators of rural properties and roads of the prohibition and conditions for compliance with 

the prohibition. The Executive Officer will review and approve, or request modification of, the Program or 

documentation submitted in compliance with the prohibition within six months of the submittal date. Should the 

Program or documentation require modification, or if a party fails to submit a Program or documentation, the 

Executive Officer may issue a civil liability complaint pursuant to section 13268 or 13350 of the CWC, or 

alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge requirements to assure compliance with the 

prohibition.

Roads

Within one year following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify the owners and operators of unpaved roads within the San Benito River watershed and paved and unpaved 

roads within the Corralitos Creek and Rider Creek watersheds of the prohibition and conditions for compliance 

with the prohibition. The Executive Officer will review and approve, or request modification of, the Program or 

documentation submitted in compliance with the prohibition within six months of the submittal date. Should the 

Program or documentation require modification, or if a party fails to submit a Program or documentation, the 

Executive Officer may issue a civil liability complaint pursuant to section 13268 or 13350 of the CWC, or 

alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge requirements to assure compliance with the 

prohibition.

Sand and Gravel Mining

Within six months following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law and pursuant to Section 

13263(e) of the CWC, Regional Board staff will review existing waste discharge requirements (WDRs) for sand 

and gravel mining operations and revise or require activities to: 1) assess cumulative impacts, including fluvial 

geomorphic impacts, upon the beneficial uses of the San Benito River; 2) mitigate the impacts identified; and 3) 

monitor the effectiveness of mitigation activities. One year following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of 

Administrative Law, pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC, the Executive Officer will require owners and 

operators of sand and gravel mining operations to submit a plan to assess cumulative impacts, including fluvial 
June 8, 2011 IV-109

geomorphic impacts, upon the beneficial uses of the San Benito River. The Executive Officer will comply with the 

requirements of section 13267 when issuing the orders. Regional Board staff will encourage sand and gravel 

mining operators to conduct the cumulative impacts assessment cooperatively.

Streambank Erosion

Owners and operators of properties where hydromodification activities occur must comply with the land 

disturbance prohibition.

Within one year following approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify the owners and operators of properties where hydromodification activities occur of the prohibition and 

conditions for compliance with the prohibition. The Executive Officer will review and approve, or request 

modification of, the Program or documentation submitted in compliance with the prohibition within six months of 

the submittal date. Should the Program or documentation require modification, or if a party fails to submit a 

Program or documentation, the Executive Officer may issue a civil liability complaint pursuant to section 13268 or 

13350 of the CWC, or alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge requirements to assure 

compliance with the prohibition.

Monitoring

Regional Board staff will develop a monitoring program to measure in-stream numeric targets within five years 

following TMDL approval. The program will be consistent with other Central Coast Region sediment TMDLs, 

regional sediment monitoring programs, and in cooperation with implementing parties. If Regional Board staff 

concludes that sediment contributions from individual landowners should be monitored in addition to in-stream 

numeric targets, the Executive Officer will establish such monitoring requirements in compliance with section 

13267.

Tracking and Evaluation

Regional Board staff will conduct a review every three years beginning three years after TMDL approval by the 

Office of Administrative Law. Regional Board staff will utilize required reports, as well as other available 

information, to review implementation efforts of responsible parties and progress being made towards achieving 

the allocations. Regional Board staff will also review numeric target monitoring (see above) to determine progress 

towards TMDL achievement in the waterbody. The numeric targets, not actual loads or reductions in loads, will 

be measured, as they are a more direct indicator of beneficial use protection. Regional Board staff may conclude 

and articulate that ongoing implementation efforts may ultimately be insufficient to achieve the allocations and 

numeric targets. If staff makes this determination, staff will recommend that additional reporting, monitoring, or 

implementation efforts be required either by the Executive Officer (e.g. pursuant to CWC section 13267 or section 

13383) or by the Regional Board (e.g. through revisions of existing permits and/or a Basin Plan Amendment). At 

any particular date, Regional Board staff may conclude and articulate that implementation efforts and results are 

likely to result in achieving the allocations and numeric target, in which case existing and anticipated 

implementation efforts should continue.

Three-year reviews will continue until the TMDLs are achieved. The target date to achieve the TMDLs is forty-five 

years after implementation commences. 
June 8, 2011 IV-110

IX. I. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR PATHOGENS FOR 

WATSONVILLE SLOUGH

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted this TMDL on March 24, 2006.

This TMDL was approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on September 21, 2006.

The California Office of Administrative Law on November 20, 2006. (Effective date)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on July 19, 2007.

Problem Statement

The beneficial uses of water contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact water recreation (REC-2) are not 

supported in Watsonville Slough or its tributaries, Struve, Hanson, Harkins and Gallighan Sloughs, because fecal 

coliform concentrations there exceed existing Basin Plan numeric water quality objectives protecting these 

beneficial uses. 

Numeric Target

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log 

mean of 200 MPN per 100mL, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples collected during any 30-day period 

exceed 400 MPN per 100mL.

Source Analysis

Controllable sources of fecal coliform bacteria in Watsonville Slough and its tributaries include humans, pets, 

livestock, and land-applied non-sterile manure in irrigated agriculture. Genetic data indicate that the major 

sources of fecal coliform causing exceedance of the REC-1 standard are natural avian populations. Genetic 

analysis of Watsonville Slough water samples from both winter and summer periods confirmed birds, cows, and 

dogs (with birds contributing the most and dogs the least); human fecal coliform bacteria was confirmed in 

Harkins and Struve Sloughs, but in lower amounts than cow, bird and dog fecal coliform. 

TMDL and Allocations

The TMDL for pathogens in Watsonville Slough is a receiving water concentration equal to the numeric target for 

fecal coliform. The allocation to each responsible party is the receiving water fecal coliform concentration equal to 

the TMDL. These allocations focus on reducing or eliminating the controllable sources of fecal coliform. The table 

below shows the allocations with respect to responsible party and waterbody. 

The allocation to background (including natural sources from birds) is also the receiving water fecal coliform 

concentration equal to the TMDL. The parties responsible for the allocation to controllable sources are not 

responsible for the allocation to natural sources.
June 8, 2011 IV-111

ALLOCATIONS AND RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS Receiving Water Fecal 

Coliform (MPN/100mL)1

Waterbody Responsible Party

Watsonville, Struve, Harkins Sloughs Santa Cruz County

(Urban Stormwater)

Watsonville, Struve, Harkins, Gallighan, 

Hanson Sloughs

City of Watsonville

(Urban Stormwater)

Harkins Slough

Santa Cruz Co. Freedom Sanitation 

District

(Sanitary Sewer Collection System)

Watsonville & Struve Sloughs City of Watsonville

(Sanitary Sewer Collection System)

Gallighan Slough Santa Cruz County

(Landfill Stormwater)

LOAD ALLOCATIONS Receiving Water Fecal 

Coliform (MPN/100mL)1

Watsonville & Harkins Sloughs Operators or owners of irrigated lands 

who land-apply non-sterile manure

Watsonville & Harkins Sloughs Operators or owners of livestock 

facilities and animals

1

As log mean of five (5) samples taken in a 30-day period occurring within each season.

The TMDL is considered achieved when the allocations assigned to the controllable and natural sources are met, 

or when the numeric targets are consistently met in all tributaries and Watsonville Slough.

Margin of Safety

A margin of safety is incorporated in the TMDL through conservative assumptions. 

Implementation and Monitoring

Landfill Stormwater Monitoring

Within six months following adoption of this TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

require the County of Santa Cruz to include fecal coliform monitoring in the Buena Vista Landfill Waste Discharge 

Requirements (Order No. 94-29), per Section 13267 of the CWC.

THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LOADING FROM HUMANS AND 

PETS:

Urban Stormwater

The City of Watsonville (City) and County of Santa Cruz (County) must revise their Stormwater Management 

Plans to indicate how and when they will conduct public participation and outreach regarding specific actions that 

individuals can take to reduce pathogen loading and to indicate how and when they will develop and implement 

an enforceable means of reducing fecal coliform loading from pet waste (e.g., an ordinance). Within six months 

following adoption of this TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will (i) issue a letter 

pursuant to Section 13383 of the California Water Code (CWC), requiring these changes to be described in the 

annual report required by the Small MS4 Permit (State Board Order No. 2003-005, NPDES General Permit 

No.CAS000004 for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems) and (ii) require appropriate modifications to the 

Stormwater Management Plans pursuant to Section G of the General Permit. 

The City and County public participation and outreach efforts must include the following tasks:

a. Educating the public about sources of fecal coliform and its associated health risks in surface 

waters. 

b. Identifying and promoting specific actions that responsible parties can implement to reduce 

pathogen loading from sources such as homeless encampments, agricultural field workers, and 

homeowners who contribute waste from domestic pets. 

The City and County must monitor receiving water and stormwater outfalls that may be contributing fecal coliform 

to the sloughs. Within six months following adoption of this TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the 
June 8, 2011 IV-112

Executive Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 and/or 13383 of the CWC, requiring a technical 

report that describes a monitoring plan and schedule that includes sampling sites in receiving water and at 

stormwater outfalls. The City and County may submit the monitoring results in subsequent annual reports already 

required by the Small MS4 Permit or submit them in a separate technical report. 

Sanitary Sewer Collection System

The City and County are required to improve maintenance of their sewage collection systems, including 

identification, correction, and prevention of sewage leaks, in portions of the collection systems that run through, or 

adjacent to, tributaries to Watsonville Slough (Action 1B, Table 1). Within six months following adoption of this 

TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 of 

the CWC, requiring a technical report that describes how and when they will conduct improved system 

maintenance in portions of the system most likely to affect the Sloughs. One year following adoption of this TMDL 

by the Office of Administrative Law, Water Board staff will evaluate proposed sewer system maintenance for the 

City and the County of Santa Cruz Freedom Sanitation District as described in the technical report and determine 

whether appropriate changes to the maintenance have been made or whether any changes to the Waste 

Discharge Requirements (currently, Order No. R3-2003-0041, and No. R3-2003-0040, respectively) are 

warranted. 

THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS WILL REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA LOADING FROM LIVESTOCK 

AND LAND-APPLIED NON-STERILE MANURE:

Livestock Sources

Operators or owners of livestock facilities and animals must comply with the proposed Watsonville Slough 

Watershed Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition to implement their load allocations. Within one year following 

approval of the TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will notify the owners and 

operators of livestock facilities, and the owners of animals, of the proposed Watsonville Slough Watershed 

Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition and conditions for compliance with the prohibition. The Executive Officer 

will review and approve, or request modification of, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Implementation 

Program (Program) or documentation submitted in compliance with the prohibition within six months of the 

submittal date. Should the Program or documentation require modification, or if a party fails to submit a Program 

or documentation, the Executive Officer may issue a civil liability complaint pursuant to section 13268 or 13350 of 

the CWC, or alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge requirements to assure compliance with 

the prohibition. Alternatively, dischargers may comply by immediately ceasing all discharges in violation of the 

Prohibition. 

Responsible parties must submit monitoring data or other evidence that demonstrates compliance with the 

Watsonville Slough Watershed Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition. The Executive Officer will determine 

whether the information submitted demonstrates compliance. 

Irrigated Land Sources

Operators or owners of irrigated lands where non-sterile manure is applied must comply with the Conditional 

Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands to implement their load allocations. 

Staff expects management measures implemented pursuant to this waiver for irrigated lands will be adequate to 

reduce or eliminate pathogen discharges where farmers apply non-sterile manure to the land. However, 

compliance with the conditions in the waiver does not meet all of the requirements of the proposed Watsonville 

Slough Watershed Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition. Since the Conditional Waiver does not include any 

regulation or monitoring of pathogen discharges, operators or owners of irrigated lands where non-sterile manure 

is applied must also submit reports that demonstrate that they do not discharge pathogens, or explain how 

pathogen discharges are being addressed.

Within six months following approval of the TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify responsible parties of the proposed Watsonville Slough Watershed Livestock Waste Discharge Prohibition 

and conditions for compliance with the prohibition. The Executive Officer will review and approve, or request 

modification of, the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Implementation Program (Program), or other 

documentation submitted in compliance with the prohibition, within six months of the submittal date. Should the 

Program or documentation require modification, or if a responsible party fails to submit a Program or 

documentation, the Executive Officer may issue an administrative civil liability complaint pursuant to section 

13268 or 13350 of the CWC, or alternatively, propose individual or general waste discharge requirements or 
June 8, 2011 IV-113

conditional waivers to assure compliance with the prohibition. Alternatively, dischargers may comply by 

immediately ceasing all discharges in violation of the Prohibition. 

Tracking and Evaluation

Water Board staff will conduct a review every three years beginning three years after TMDL approval by the 

Office of Administrative Law. Water Board staff will use Annual Reports and any other available information to 

determine progress toward compliance. Water Board staff may conclude that ongoing implementation efforts are 

insufficient to ultimately achieve the allocations and numeric target. If staff makes this determination, staff will 

recommend that additional reporting, monitoring, or implementation efforts be required either through authority of 

the Executive Officer (e.g. pursuant to CWC section 13267 or section 13383) or the Water Board (e.g. through 

revisions of existing permits and/or a Basin Plan Amendment). Water Board staff may also conclude that 

implementation efforts are likely to achieve compliance, and therefore existing implementation efforts should 

continue. 

Responsible parties will continue monitoring according to this plan for at least three years, at which time Water 

Board staff will determine the need for continuing or otherwise modifying the monitoring requirements. 

Responsible parties may also demonstrate that controllable sources of pathogens are not contributing to 

exceedance of water quality objectives in receiving waters. If this is the case, staff may consider re-evaluating the 

targets and allocations. For example, staff may propose a site-specific objective for Watsonville Sloughs, to be 

approved by the Water Board. The site-specific objective would be based on evidence that natural, or 

“background” sources alone were the cause of exceedances of the Basin Plan water quality objective for fecal 

coliform. 

Three-year reviews will continue until the TMDL is achieved. The target date to achieve the TMDL is ten years 

after implementation commences.
June 8, 2011 IV-114

Table 1. Implementation Actions of Responsible Parties

Responsible Party Source Category Management 

Measure

Action

County of Santa 

Cruz and City of 

Watsonville

1A

Human

Public 

Participation and 

Outreach

Educate the public, including the homeless, regarding sources of 

fecal coliform and associated health risks of fecal coliform in 

surface waters of the Watsonville Slough Watershed. Educate the 

public regarding actions that individuals can take to reduce 

pathogen loading in the Watershed. Revise Stormwater 

Management Plan and submit to Water Board for approval, 

monitor, and report.

1B

Human

Human Source 

Elimination and 

Prevention 

Maintain the sewage collection system, including identification, 

correction, and prevention of sewage leaks into tributaries to 

Watsonville Slough. Revise Sewer System Management Plan and 

submit to Water Board for approval, monitor, and report.

1C

Pets

Pet Waste 

Management

Develop and implement enforceable means (e.g., an ordinance) of 

reducing/eliminating fecal coliform loading from pet waste. 

Educate the public regarding actions that individuals can take to 

reduce loading in the Watershed. Revise Stormwater Management 

Plan and submit to Water Board for approval, monitor, and report.

Operators or 

owners of 

livestock facilities 

and animals

2A

Livestock

Farm Animal and 

Livestock 

Facilities 

Management

Develop and implement strategies to reduce/eliminate fecal 

coliform loading from farm animal and livestock facilities (e.g., 

pens, corrals, barns) into surface waters of the Watsonville Slough 

Watershed. Submit Nonpoint Source Control Implementation 

Program to the Executive Officer of the Water Board and monitor 

and report, or, document and report to the Water Board that no 

discharge is occurring from animal facilities.

2B

Livestock

Grazing 

Management

Protect sensitive areas (including streambanks, sloughs, wetlands, 

and riparian zones) by reducing direct loadings of animal wastes 

from grazing areas into surface waters of the Watsonville Slough 

Watershed. Submit Nonpoint Source Control Implementation 

Program to the Executive Officer of the Water Board and monitor 

and report, or, document and report to the Water Board that no 

discharge is occurring from grazing activities.

Operators or 

owners of 

irrigated lands 

who land-apply 

non-sterile 

manure

3

Land-Applied 

Non-Sterile 

Manure on 

Irrigated lands

Irrigated Land 

Management

Develop, implement and report on measures to reduce/eliminate 

fecal coliform loading from land-applied non-sterile manure into 

surface waters of the Watsonville Slough Watershed. Document 

and report to the Water Board that measures are in place and 

monitor to demonstrate effectiveness.
June 8, 2011 IV-115

IX. J. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN SAN 

LORENZO ESTUARY, SAN LORENZO RIVER, BRANCIFORTE 

CREEK, CAMP EVERS CREEK, CARBONERA CREEK, AND 

LOMPICO CREEK

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these TMDLs on May 8, 2009.

These TMDLs were approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on: March 1, 2011.

The California Office of Administrative Law on: June 6, 2011. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on: July 20, 2011. 

Problem Statement

The beneficial use of water contact recreation is not protected in the impaired reaches of the San Lorenzo River 

Estuary (also known as San Lorenzo River Lagoon), San Lorenzo River , Branciforte Creek, Camp Evers Creek, 

Carbonera Creek, and Lompico Creek because fecal coliform concentrations exceed existing Basin Plan numeric 

water quality objectives protecting this beneficial use. All reaches in these waterbodies are impaired with the 

exception of Carbonera Creek, where the impairment extends from the mouth of Carbonera Creek upstream to its 

intersection with Bethany Road. 

Numeric Targets

The numeric targets used to develop the TMDLs and allocations are as follows:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

Source Analysis

San Lorenzo River Estuary 

The relative order of controllable sources, in descending order, is: 

1) City of Santa Cruz sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks (including private laterals connected to 

municipal sanitary sewer collection systems), 2) storm drain discharges to municipally owned and operated 

separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) required to be covered by an NPDES permit, 3) pet waste in areas that do 

not drain to MS4s, 4) homeless person/encampment discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s, 5) onsite 

wastewater disposal system discharges, and 6) farm animal and livestock discharges.

San Lorenzo River, and Lompico Creek 

The relative order of controllable sources, in descending order, is: 

1) Onsite wastewater disposal system discharges, 2) storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be covered by 

an NPDES permit, 3) City of Santa Cruz sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks (including private 

laterals connected to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems) within the City limits of Santa Cruz [does not 

include Lompico Creek], 4) pet waste in areas that do not drain to MS4s, 5) homeless person/encampment 

discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s, and 6) farm animal and livestock discharges.

Branciforte Creek,

The relative order of controllable sources, in descending order, is: 

1) Storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be covered by an NPDES permit, 2) pet waste in areas that do not 

drain to MS4s, 3) City of Santa Cruz sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks (including private laterals 

connected to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems) within the City limits of Santa Cruz, 4) homeless 
June 8, 2011 IV-116

person/encampment discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s, 5) onsite wastewater disposal system 

discharges, and 6) farm animal and livestock discharges. 

Carbonera and Camp Evers Creeks:

The relative order of controllable sources, in descending order, is: 

1) Storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be covered by an NPDES permit, 2) pet waste in areas that do not 

drain to MS4s, 3) homeless person/encampment discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s, 4) onsite 

wastewater disposal system discharges (only for Carbonera Creek) 5) farm animal and livestock discharges, and 

6) City of Santa Cruz sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks (including private laterals connected to 

municipal sanitary sewer collection systems; only for Carbonera Creek).

TMDLs and Allocations 

The TMDLs are for the impaired reaches of the following water bodies, and are applicable for each day for all 

seasons:

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, Camp Evers Creek, Carbonera Creek, and 

Lompico Creek. TMDLs:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

The allocations to responsible parties are shown in Table IX J-1. 
June 8, 2011 IV-117

Table IX J-1. Allocations and Responsible Parties

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Waterbody Assigned Allocation1

Responsible Party 

(Source)

NPDES/Order number

Receiving Water 

Fecal Coliform 

(MPN/100mL)

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, and 

Carbonera Creek

City of Santa Cruz

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s 

required to be covered 

by an NPDES permit) 

NPDES No. CAS000004

Allocation-1

a

Camp Evers Creek and Carbonera 

Creek

City of Scotts Valley

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s 

required to be covered 

by an NPDES permit) 

NPDES No. CAS000004

Allocation-1

a

San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Lompico Creek, and Carbonera Creek

Santa Cruz County

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s 

required to be covered 

by an NPDES permit) 

NPDES No. CAS000004

Allocation-1

a

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, and 

Carbonera Creek 

City of Santa Cruz 

(Sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks)

NPDES No. CA 0048194, Order R3-2005-003

Allocation-2

b

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Carbonera Creek , and Lompico Creek 

Owners of onsite wastewater disposal systems

residing in the County of Santa Cruz 

(Onsite wastewater disposal system discharges)

Allocation-2

b

LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Waterbody Responsible Party

(Source)

Receiving Water 

Fecal Coliform 

(MPN/100mL)

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Carbonera Creek , and Lompico Creek 

Owners of onsite wastewater disposal systems

residing in the County of Santa Cruz 

(Onsite wastewater disposal system discharges)

Allocation-2

b

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek,

Camp Evers Creek, Carbonera Creek 

, and Lompico Creek 

Owners/operators of land used for/containing 

pets

(Pet waste not draining to MS4s)

Allocation-1

a

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Carbonera Creek, Camp Evers Creek, 

and Lompico Creek

Owners/operators of land used for/containing 

farm animals and livestock

(Farm Animals and Livestock discharges)

Allocation-1

a
June 8, 2011 IV-118

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Lompico Creek, Camp Evers Creek, 

and Carbonera Creek

Owners and/or operators of land that include 

homeless persons/encampments

(Discharges from homeless 

persons/encampments not regulated by a 

permit for storm water discharges) 

Allocation-2

b

San Lorenzo River Estuary, San 

Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek, 

Lompico Creek, Camp Evers Creek, 

and Carbonera Creek

No responsible party

(Natural sources)

Allocation-1

a

1 All reaches of the following water bodies are assigned allocations, excepting Carbonera Creek, where the allocations are assigned from the 

mouth to the intersection with Bethany Road.

a Allocation-1 = Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log 

mean of 200 MPN/100mL, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN/100 mL.

b Allocation-2= Allocation of zero; no loading allowed from this source.

The parties responsible for the allocation to controllable sources are not responsible for the allocation to natural 

sources.

The TMDLs are considered achieved when the allocations assigned to all individual responsible parties are met or 

when the numeric targets are consistently met in the San Lorenzo River Estuary, San Lorenzo River, Branciforte 

Creek, Camp Evers Creek, Carbonera Creek, and Lompico Creek.

Margin of Safety 

A margin of safety is incorporated implicitly in the TMDLs through conservative assumptions. 

Implementation Plan

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM LEAKS

Entities with jurisdiction over sewer collection systems can demonstrate compliance with these TMDL allocations 

through Waste Discharge Requirements and/or NPDES permits. 

The City of Santa Cruz and City of Scotts Valley must continue to implement their sewer Collection System 

Management Plans as required by their respective NPDES permits and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) 

(City of Santa Cruz NPDES No. CA 0048194 and WDR Order R3-2005-003; City of Scotts Valley NPDES No. CA 

0048828, WDR Order R3 2002-0016).

In addition, the City of Santa Cruz is required to improve maintenance of their sewage collection system, including 

identification, correction, and prevention of sewage spills and leaks in portions of the collection systems that run 

through or adjacent to, impaired surface waters within the San Lorenzo River Estuary or San Lorenzo River. To 

this end, within six months following approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive 

Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code requiring: 1) submittal within one 

year of a technical report that describes how and when the City of Santa Cruz will conduct improved collection 

system maintenance in portions of the collection system most likely to affect impaired surface water bodies, with 

the end result being compliance with its TMDL allocation, 2) stream monitoring for fecal coliform or another fecal 

indicator bacteria and reporting of these monitoring activities, and 3) annual reporting of self-assessment as to 

whether the City of Santa Cruz is in compliance with the TMDL allocation.

PRIVATE LATERALS TO THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 

The Central Coast Water Board has identified leaks from private laterals located in the City of Santa Cruz as a 

source of fecal indicator bacteria in municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Therefore, enrollees for the 

City of Santa Cruz’ General Permit for the Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm 
June 8, 2011 IV-119

Sewer Systems will address fecal indicator bacteria from private lateral leaks in the Wasteload Allocation 

Attainment Program (as described in the following section).

STORM DRAIN DISCHARGES TO MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED SEPARATE STORM SEWER 

SYSTEMS 

The Central Coast Water Board will address fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), e.g., fecal coliform and/or other 

indicators of pathogens, discharged from the County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley 

municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 entities) by regulating the MS4 entities under the provisions of the 

State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for the Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal 

Separate Storm Sewer Systems (General Permit) (NPDES No. CAS000004). As enrollees under the General 

Permit, the MS4 entities must develop and implement Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs) that control 

urban runoff discharges into and from their MS4s. To address the MS4 entities’ TMDL wasteload allocations, the 

Central Coast Water Board will require the MS4 entities to specifically target FIB in urban runoff through 

incorporation of Wasteload Allocation Attainment Programs in their SWMPs.

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to include descriptions 

of the actions that will be taken by the MS4 entities to attain the TMDL wasteload allocations, and specifically 

address: 

1. Development of an implementation and assessment strategy; 

2. Source identification and prioritization (including leaks to storm sewers from private laterals);

3. Best management practice identification, prioritization, implementation schedule, analysis, and 

effectiveness assessment;

4. Monitoring program development and implementation;

5. Reporting, including evaluation whether current best management practices are progressing towards 

achieving the wasteload allocations within thirteen years of the date that the TMDLs are approved by the 

Office of Administrative Law.

6. Coordination with stakeholders; and

7. Other pertinent factors. 

The Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program will be required by the Central Coast Water Board to address each 

of these TMDLs that occur within the MS4 entities’ jurisdictions. 

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to be submitted at one 

of the following milestones, whichever occurs first:

1. Within one year of approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law;

2. When required by any other Central Coast Water Board-issued storm water requirements (e.g., when the 

Phase II Municipal Storm Water Permit is renewed).

For those MS4 entities that are enrolled under the General Permit at the time of Wasteload Allocation Attainment 

Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be incorporated into the SWMPs when 

they are submitted. For those MS4 entities that are not enrolled under the General Permit at the time of 

Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be 

incorporated into the SWMPs when the SWMPs are approved by the Central Coast Water Board. 

The Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board will require information that demonstrates implementation 

of the actions described above, pursuant to applicable sections of the California Water Code and/or pursuant to 

authorities provided in the General Permit for storm water discharges.

PET WASTE, FARM ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK DISCHARGES 

Owners and/or operators of lands containing domestic animals (including pets, farm animals, and livestock) in the 

San Lorenzo River Watershed must comply with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; compliance 

with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for these 

TMDLs. 
June 8, 2011 IV-120

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners and/or operators of lands used for/containing domestic animals of the requirement to comply with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the 

options owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals have for demonstrating compliance with the 

Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13267 and within six 

months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals will be 

required to submit one of the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner/operator of lands containing domestic animals is and will continue to be in 

compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be 

documentation submitted by the owner/operator to the Executive Officer validating current and continued 

compliance with the Prohibition. 

2) A plan for compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from domestic animals. The plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices are likely to progressively achieve the load allocations to domestic animals, with 

the ultimate goal of achieving the load allocations no later than thirteen years after Office of 

Administrative Law approval of the TMDL. The plan must include monitoring and reporting to the Central 

Coast Water Board, demonstrating the progress towards achieving load allocations for discharges from 

domestic animals, and a self-assessment of this progress. The plan may be developed by an individual 

discharger or by or for a coalition of dischargers in cooperation with a third-party representative, 

organization, or government agency acting as the agents of owners/operators of lands containing 

domestic animals. 

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements).

ONSITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEM DISCHARGES 

Owners of onsite wastewater disposal systems in the San Lorenzo River Watershed must comply with the Human 

Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition.

Owners of onsite wastewater disposal systems must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or 

the Central Coast Water Board that they are in compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; 

compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for 

these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

either 1) determine that the County of Santa Cruz is making adequate progress towards implementing an 

approved Santa Cruz County Onsite Wastewater Management Plan (or another Implementation Program to 

address onsite wastewater disposal systems) as it pertains to controlling the waste loads from onsite wastewater 

disposal systems in the San Lorenzo River Watershed, or 2) notify owners of onsite wastewater disposal systems 

(owners) in the area described above of the requirement to comply with the Human Fecal Material Discharge 

Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe owners’ options for demonstrating 

compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water Code 13267 and 

within six months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners will be required to submit one of the following 

for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board: 

1) Clear evidence that the owner is and will continue to be in compliance with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be verification by the County of Santa Cruz, or similar, that 

the owner’s onsite wastewater disposal system is in compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge 

Prohibition.

2) A schedule for compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. The compliance 

schedule must include a monitoring and reporting program and milestone dates demonstrating progress 

towards compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition, with the ultimate milestone 

being compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition no later than three years from the 

date of the Executive Officer’s notification to the owner requiring compliance.

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements; WDRs).
June 8, 2011 IV-121

4) Clear evidence of current or scheduled compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition 

(as described in number 1 and number 2 above, respectively) through the submittal of the required 

information by the County of Santa Cruz, acting as the voluntary agents of owners of onsite wastewater 

disposal systems. Note that an owner of an onsite wastewater disposal system cannot demonstrate 

compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition through this option if: 1) the County of 

Santa Cruz is not their voluntary agent, 2) if the owner of the onsite wastewater disposal system does not 

choose the County of Santa Cruz as their agent, or 3) the Executive Officer or Central Coast Water Board 

does not approve the evidence submitted by the County of Santa Cruz on behalf of the owners of onsite 

wastewater disposal systems. 

HOMELESS PERSONS/ENCAMPMENT DISCHARGES NOT REGULATED BY A PERMIT FOR STORM 

WATER DISCHARGES 

Owners of land that contain homeless persons and/or homeless encampments in the San Lorenzo River 

Watershed must comply with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition.

Owners of land with homeless persons must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or the 

Central Coast Water Board that they are in compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; 

compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for 

these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners of land containing homeless persons of the requirement to comply with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe owners’ options for 

demonstrating compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water 

Code 13267 and within six months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners will be required to submit 

one of the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner is and will continue to be in compliance with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be documentation submitted by the owner to the Executive 

Officer validating current and continued compliance with the Prohibition. 

2) A plan for compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from homeless persons. The Plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices are likely to progressively achieve the load allocation for homeless persons, with 

the ultimate goal of achieving the load allocation no later than three years from the date of the Executive 

Officer’s notification to the owner requiring compliance. The plan must include monitoring and reporting 

to the Central Coast Water Board, demonstrating the progress towards achieving load allocations for 

discharges from homeless persons, and self-assessment of this progress.

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements).

Tracking and Evaluation

Every three years, beginning three years after TMDLs are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Central Coast Water Board will perform a review of implementation actions, monitoring results, and evaluations 

submitted by responsible parties of their progress towards achieving their allocations. The Central Coast Water 

Board will use annual reports, nonpoint source pollution control implementation programs, evaluations submitted 

by responsible parties, and other available information to determine progress toward implementing required 

actions and achieving the allocations and the numeric target. 

Responsible parties will continue monitoring and reporting according to this plan for at least three years, at which 

time the Central Coast Water Board will determine the need for continuing or otherwise modifying the monitoring 

requirements. Responsible parties may also demonstrate that although water quality objectives are not being 

achieved in receiving waters, controllable sources of pathogens are not contributing to the exceedance. If this is 

the case, the Central Coast Water Board may re-evaluate the numeric target and allocations. For example, the 

Central Coast Water Board may pursue and approve a site-specific objective based on evidence that natural or 

background sources alone were the cause of exceedances of the Basin Plan water quality objective for fecal 

indicator bacteria. 
June 8, 2011 IV-122

Three-year reviews will continue until the water quality objectives are achieved. The compliance schedule for 

achieving the TMDL numeric target is 13 years after the date of approval by the Office of Administrative Law. 
June 8, 2011 IV-123

IX. K. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN 

SOQUEL LAGOON, SOQUEL CREEK, AND NOBLE GULCH

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these TMDLs on May 8, 2009.

These TMDLs were approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on: July 6, 2010.

The California Office of Administrative Law on: September 5, 2010.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on: November 17, 2010.

Problem Statement

The beneficial use of water contact recreation is not protected in the impaired reaches of Soquel Lagoon, Soquel 

Creek, and Noble Gulch because fecal coliform concentrations exceed water quality objectives protecting this 

beneficial use. The impaired reaches are:

1) Soquel Lagoon and Soquel Creek: beginning from the mouth of Soquel Lagoon, upstream and along 

Soquel Creek to the bridge at Porter Street. 

2) All reaches of Noble Gulch.

Numeric Targets

The numeric targets used to develop the TMDLs and allocations are as follows:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

Source Analysis

The controllable sources of fecal coliform contributing to impairment in Soquel Lagoon, Soquel Creek, and Noble 

Gulch are, in decreasing order of contribution: 

1. Storm drain discharges to municipally owned and operated separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) 

required to be covered by an NPDES permit (including but not limited to discharges of fecal material from 

domestic animals and humans).

2. Sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks (including but not limited to discharges from private 

laterals connected to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems).

3. Domestic animal waste discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s (including but not limited to farm 

animals, livestock and pets).

4. Homeless person/encampment discharges in areas that do not drain to MS4s. 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

The TMDLs for the impaired reaches of the following water bodies are concentration based TMDLs applicable for 

each day for all seasons and are equal to the following:

Soquel Lagoon, Soquel Creek, and Noble Gulch:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

Allocations and Responsible Parties

The allocations to responsible parties are shown in Table IX K-1.
June 8, 2011 IV-124

Table IX K-1. Allocations to Responsible Parties

Waste Load Allocations

Waterbody Subject to 

Allocation

Responsible Party

(Source)

NPDES/ORDER Number

Receiving Water Fecal 

Coliform (MPN/100mL)

Soquel Lagoon1

City of Capitola

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be 

covered 

by an NPDES permit)

Storm Water General Permit 

NPDES No. CAS000004

Allocation-1

a

Soquel Creek 2

Noble Gulch3

County of Santa Cruz and

City of Capitola

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be 

covered 

by an NPDES permit)

Storm Water General Permit 

NPDES No. CAS000004

Allocation-1

a

Soquel Lagoon1

Soquel Creek 2

Noble Gulch3

Santa Cruz County Sanitation District

(Sanitary sewer collection system 

spills and leaks )

Order No. R3-2005-0043

Allocation-2

b

Load Allocations

Waterbody Subject to 

Allocation

Responsible Party 

(Source)

Receiving Water Fecal 

Coliform (MPN/100mL)

Soquel Lagoon1

Soquel Creek 2

Noble Gulch3

Owners and operators of land used for/containing 

pets

(Pet waste not draining to MS4s) 

Allocation-1

a

Noble Gulch3

Owners and operators of land used for/containing 

farm animals and livestock

(Farm Animals and Livestock discharges)

Allocation-1

a

Soquel Lagoon1

Soquel Creek 2

Noble Gulch3

Owners/operators of land that include homeless 

persons/encampments

(Homeless person/encampment discharges not 

draining to MS4s)

Allocation-2

b

Soquel Lagoon1

Soquel Creek 2

Noble Gulch3

No responsible party

(Natural sources)

Allocation-1

a

1 All waters of the Soquel Lagoon.

2 Beginning and including the downstream most reach of Soquel Creek, up to and including Soquel Creek at the bridge crossing at Porter 

Street.
June 8, 2011 IV-125

3 All reaches of Noble Gulch.

a Allocation-1: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log 

mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

b Allocation 2: Allocation of zero; no loading allowed from this source.

The parties responsible for the allocations to controllable sources are not responsible for the allocation to natural

sources.

The TMDLs are considered achieved when the numeric target is consistently met in the impaired waters of 

Soquel Lagoon, Soquel Creek, and Noble Gulch. 

Margin of Safety 

A margin of safety is incorporated implicitly in the TMDLs through conservative assumptions. 

Implementation Plan 

STORM DRAIN DISCHARGES:

The Central Coast Water Board will address fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), e.g., fecal coliform and/or other 

indicators of pathogens, discharged from the County of Santa Cruz and the City of Capitola by regulating the MS4 

entities under the provisions of the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit for the Discharges of 

Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (General Permit) (NPDES No. CAS000004). 

As enrollees under the General Permit, the MS4 entities must develop and implement Storm Water Management 

Plans (SWMPs) that control urban runoff discharges into and from their MS4s. To address the MS4 entities’ 

TMDL wasteload allocations, the Central Coast Water Board will require the MS4 entities to specifically target FIB 

in urban runoff through incorporation of Wasteload Allocation Attainment Programs in their SWMPs.

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Programs to include descriptions 

of the actions that will be taken by the MS4 entities to attain the TMDL wasteload allocations, and specifically 

address: 

1. Development of an implementation and assessment strategy; 

2. Source identification and prioritization (including leaks to storm sewers from private laterals);

3. Best management practice identification, prioritization, implementation schedule, analysis, and 

effectiveness assessment;

4. Monitoring program development and implementation;

5. Reporting; including evaluation whether current best management practices are progressing towards 

achieving the wasteload allocations within thirteen years of the date that the TMDLs are approved by the 

Office of Administrative Law;

6. Coordination with stakeholders; and

7. Other pertinent factors. 

The Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program will be required by the Central Coast Water Board to address each 

of these TMDLs that occur within the MS4 entities’ jurisdictions. 

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to be submitted at one 

of the following milestones, whichever occurs first:

1. Within one year of approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law;

2. When required by any other Water Board-issued storm water requirements (e.g., when the Phase II 

Municipal Storm Water Permit is renewed).

For those MS4 entities that are enrolled under the General Permit at the time of Wasteload Allocation Attainment 

Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be incorporated into the SWMPs when 

they are submitted. For those MS4 entities that are not enrolled under the General Permit at the time of 

Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be 

incorporated into the SWMPs when the SWMPs are approved by the Central Coast Water Board. 
June 8, 2011 IV-126

The Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board will require information that demonstrates implementation 

of the actions described above, pursuant to applicable sections of the California Water Code and/or pursuant to 

authorities provided in the General Permit for storm water discharges.

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM SPILLS AND LEAKS:

Entities with jurisdiction over sewer collection systems can demonstrate compliance with these TMDL load 

allocations through Waste Discharge Requirements and/or NPDES permits. 

The Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (SCCSD) must continue to implement their Collection System 

Management Plan, as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (Order No. R3-2005-0043). 

In addition, the SCCSD is required to improve maintenance of their sewage collection system, including 

identification, correction, and prevention of sewage leaks in portions of the collection systems that run through, or 

adjacent to, impaired surface waters within the Soquel Lagoon Watershed.

To this end, within six months following approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Executive Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code requiring: 1) submittal 

within one year of a technical report that describes how and when the SCCSD will conduct improved collection 

system maintenance in portions of the collection system most likely to affect impaired surface water bodies, with 

the end result being compliance with its TMDL allocation, 2) stream monitoring for fecal coliform or another fecal 

indicator bacteria and reporting of these monitoring activities, and 3) annual reporting of self-assessment as to 

whether the SCCSD is in compliance with the TMDL allocation.

PRIVATE LATERALS TO THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM:

The Central Coast Water Board has identified leaks from private laterals located in the City of Capitola and 

County of Santa Cruz as a source of fecal indicator bacteria in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). 

Therefore, enrollees for the City of Capitola and County of Santa Cruz General Permit for the Discharges of Storm 

Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems will address fecal indicator bacteria from private 

lateral leaks in the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program (as described in the Storm Drain Discharges 

section).

DOMESTIC ANIMALS NOT REGULATED BY WQ ORDER NO. 2003-0005-DWQ [STORM WATER GENERAL 

PERMIT]:

Owners and/or operators of lands containing domestic animals (including pets, farm animals, and livestock) in the 

Soquel Lagoon Watershed must comply with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; compliance with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners and/or operators of lands used for/containing domestic animals of the requirement to comply with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the 

options owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals have for demonstrating compliance with the 

Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13267 and within six 

months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals will be 

required to submit one of the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner/operator of lands containing domestic animals is and will continue to be in 

compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be 

documentation submitted by the owner/operator to the Executive Officer validating current and continued 

compliance with the Prohibition. 

2) A plan for compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from domestic animals. The plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices are likely to progressively achieve the load allocations to domestic animals, with 

the ultimate goal of achieving the load allocations no later than thirteen years after Office of 

Administrative Law approval of these TMDLs. The plan must include monitoring and reporting to the 
June 8, 2011 IV-127

Central Coast Water Board, demonstrating the progress towards achieving load allocations for discharges 

from domestic animals, and a self-assessment of this progress. The plan may be developed by an 

individual discharger or by or for a coalition of dischargers in cooperation with a third-party representative, 

organization, or government agency acting as the agents of owners/operators of lands containing 

domestic animals. 

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements).

HOMELESS PERSON/ENCAMPMENT DISCHARGES NOT REGULATED BY WQ ORDER NO. 2003-0005-

DWQ [STORM WATER GENERAL PERMIT:

Owners of land that contain homeless persons and/or homeless encampments in the Soquel Lagoon Watershed 

must comply with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition.

Owners of land with homeless persons must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Executive Officer or the 

Central Coast Water Board that they are in compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; 

compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for 

these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners of land containing homeless persons of the requirement to comply with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the options owners have for 

demonstrating compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water 

Code 13267 and within six months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners will be required to submit 

one of the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner is and will continue to be in compliance with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be documentation submitted by the owner to the Executive 

Officer validating current and continued compliance with the Prohibition. 

2) A plan for compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from homeless persons. The Plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices are likely to progressively achieve the load allocation for homeless persons, with 

the ultimate goal of achieving the load allocation no later than three years from the date of the Executive 

Officer’s notification to the owner requiring compliance. The plan must include monitoring and reporting 

to the Central Coast Water Board, demonstrating the progress towards achieving load allocations for 

discharges from homeless persons, and self-assessment of this progress. 

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements).

Tracking and Evaluation 

Every three years, beginning three years after TMDLs are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Central Coast Water Board will perform a review of implementation actions, monitoring results, and evaluations 

submitted by responsible parties of their progress towards achieving their allocations. The Central Coast Water 

Board will use annual reports, nonpoint source pollution control implementation programs, evaluations submitted 

by responsible parties, and other available information to determine progress toward implementing required 

actions and achieving the allocations and the numeric target. 

Responsible parties will continue monitoring and reporting according to this plan for at least three years, at which 

time the Central Coast Water Board will determine the need for continuing or otherwise modifying the monitoring 

requirements. Responsible parties may also demonstrate that although water quality objectives are not being 

achieved in receiving waters, controllable sources of pathogens are not contributing to the exceedance. If this is 

the case, the Central Coast Water Board may re-evaluate the numeric target and allocations. For example, the 

Central Coast Water Board may pursue and approve a site-specific objective. The site-specific objective would 

be based on evidence that natural or background sources alone were the cause of exceedances of the Basin 

Plan water quality objective for fecal indicator bacteria. 
June 8, 2011 IV-128

Three-year reviews will continue until the water quality objectives are achieved. The compliance schedule for 

achieving the allocations and numeric target required under these TMDLs is 13 years after the date of approval by 

the Office of Administrative Law. 
June 8, 2011 IV-129

IX. L. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR PATHOGENS IN 

APTOS CREEK, VALENCIA CREEK, AND TROUT GULCH

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these TMDLs on May 8, 2009.

These TMDLs were approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on August 3, 2010.

The California Office of Administrative Law on October 29, 2010.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on January 20, 2011.

Problem Statement

The beneficial use of water contact recreation is not being attained in Aptos Creek, Valencia Creek and Trout 

Gulch because fecal coliform concentrations exceed existing Basin Plan numeric water quality objectives 

protecting this beneficial use. Staff concluded Aptos Creek was impaired below the confluence with Valencia 

Creek. The entire reach of Trout Gulch was considered impaired. Staff also considered Valencia Creek impaired 

from its confluence with Aptos Creek, upstream to both the east and west forks. The east fork was impaired 

upstream to the intersection of McKay and Cox Roads. The west fork was impaired upstream to its intersection 

with Valencia Road.

Numeric Targets

The numeric targets used to develop the TMDLs and allocations are as follows:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, 

shall not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples 

collected during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

Source Analysis

The relative order of controllable sources, in descending order, contributing pathogens to Aptos Creek, Valencia 

Creek, and Trout Gulch are: (1) storm drain discharges to municipally owned and operated separate storm sewer 

systems (MS4s) required to be covered by an NPDES permit, (2) pet waste in areas that do not drain to MS4s, (3) 

County of Santa Cruz Sanitation District sanitary sewer collection system spills and leaks, (4) private sewer 

laterals connected to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems, and (5) farm animals and livestock discharges.

TMDLs and Allocations 

The TMDLs for all impaired waters of Aptos Creek, Valencia Creek, and Trout Gulch are concentration based 

TMDLs applicable to each day of all seasons and are equal to the following:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

The allocations to responsible parties are shown in Table IX-L-1. 
June 8, 2011 IV-130

Table IX – L - 1. Allocations and Responsible Parties

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Receiving Water 

Fecal Coliform 

(MPN/100mL)

Waterbody

Responsible Party 

(Source)

NPDES/Order number

Aptos Creek1, 

Trout Gulch2, 

Valencia Creek3

Santa Cruz County

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s 

required to be covered 

by an NPDES permit) 

Storm Water General Permit 

NPDES No. CAS000004 

Allocation 1a

Aptos Creek1, 

Trout Gulch2, 

Valencia Creek3

Santa Cruz County Sanitation 

District

(Sanitary sewer collection system 

spills and leaks) 

Order No. R3-2005-0043

Allocation 2b

LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Receiving Water 

Fecal Coliform 

(MPN/100mL)

Waterbody Responsible Party 

(Source)

Aptos Creek1, 

Trout Gulch2, 

Valencia Creek3

Owners/Operators of land used 

for/containing pets

(Pet waste not draining to MS4s) 

Allocation 1a

Aptos Creek1, 

Trout Gulch2, 

Valencia Creek3

Owners/Operators of land used 

for/containing

farm animals and livestock

(Farm Animals and Livestock 

discharges)

Allocation 1a

Aptos Creek1, 

Trout Gulch2, 

Valencia Creek3

Natural sources Allocation 1a

1 Aptos Creek from the Pacific Ocean to the confluence of Aptos and Valencia Creeks

2 All reaches of Trout Gulch

3 Valencia Creek from the confluence with Aptos Creek upstream to the west fork, where it intersects with Valencia Road, and to the east fork 

at the intersection of McKay and Cox Roads.

a Allocation 1: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a log 

mean of 200 MPN/100mL, nor shall more than ten percent of total samples during any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN/100 mL.

b Allocation 2: Allocation of zero; no loading allowed from this source.

The parties responsible for the allocations to controllable sources are not responsible for the allocation to natural 

sources.

The TMDLs are considered achieved when the allocations assigned to all individual responsible parties are met, 

or when the numeric targets are consistently met in Aptos Creek, Valencia Creek, and Trout Gulch.
June 8, 2011 IV-131

Margin of Safety 

A margin of safety is incorporated implicitly in the TMDLs through conservative assumptions. 

Implementation Plan

STORM DRAIN DISCHARGES

The Central Coast Water Board will address fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), e.g. fecal coliform and/or other 

indicators of pathogens, discharged from the County of Santa Cruz’ municipal separate storm sewer system 

(MS4) by regulating the MS4 under the provisions of the State Water Resources Control Board’s General Permit 

for the Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (General Permit) 

(NPDES No. CAS000004). As an enrollee under the General Permit, the MS4 must develop and implement a 

Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that controls urban runoff discharges into and from its MS4. To address 

the MS4’s TMDL wasteload allocations, the Central Coast Water Board will require the MS4 to specifically target 

FIB in urban runoff through incorporation of a Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program in its SWMP.

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to include descriptions 

of the actions that will be taken by the MS4 to attain the TMDL wasteload allocations, and specifically address: 

1. Development of an implementation and assessment strategy; 

2. Source identification and prioritization (including leaks to storm sewers from private laterals);

3. Best management practice identification, prioritization, implementation schedule, analysis, and effectiveness 

assessment;

4. Monitoring program development and implementation;

5. Reporting, including evaluation whether current best management practices are progressing towards achieving 

the wasteload allocations within thirteen years of the date that the TMDLs are approved by the Office of 

Administrative Law;

6. Coordination with stakeholders; and

7. Other pertinent factors. 

The Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program will be required by the Central Coast Water Board to address each 

of these TMDLs that occur within the MS4 entity’s jurisdiction. 

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to be submitted at one 

of the following milestones, whichever occurs first:

1. Within one year of approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law;

2. When required by any other Water Board-issued storm water requirements (e.g., when the Phase II Municipal 

Storm Water Permit is renewed).

For an MS4 that is enrolled under the General Permit at the time of Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program 

submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be incorporated into the SWMPs when they are 

submitted. For an MS4 that is not enrolled under the General Permit at the time of Wasteload Allocation 

Attainment Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be incorporated into the 

SWMP when the SWMP is approved by the Central Coast Water Board. 

The Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board will require information that demonstrates implementation 

of the actions described above, pursuant to applicable sections of the California Water Code and/or pursuant to 

authorities provided in the General Permit for storm water discharges.

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM SPILLS AND LEAKS 

Entities with jurisdiction over sewer collection systems can demonstrate compliance with these TMDL allocations 

through waste discharge requirements and/or NPDES permits.

The Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (SCCSD) must continue to implement its Collection System 

Management Plan, as required by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (Order No. R3-2005-0043). 
June 8, 2011 IV-132

In addition, the SCCSD is required to improve maintenance of their sewage collection system, including 

identification, correction, and prevention of sewage leaks in portions of the collection systems that run through, or 

adjacent to, impaired surface waters within the Aptos Creek Watershed.

To this end, within six months following approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Executive Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code requiring: 1) submittal 

within one year of a technical report that describes how and when the SCCSD will conduct improved collection 

system maintenance in portions of the collection system most likely to affect impaired surface water bodies, with 

the end result being compliance with its TMDL allocation, 2) stream monitoring for fecal coliform or another fecal 

indicator bacteria and reporting of these monitoring activities, and 3) annual reporting of self-assessment as to 

whether the SCCSD is in compliance with the TMDL allocation.

PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL DISCHARGES

The Central Coast Water Board has identified leaks from private laterals located in the County of Santa Cruz as a 

source of fecal indicator bacteria in municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Therefore, enrollees for the 

County of Santa Cruz’ General Permit for the Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm 

Sewer Systems will address fecal indicator bacteria from private lateral leaks in the Wasteload Allocation 

Attainment Program (as described in the above Storm Drain Discharges section).

PET WASTE, FARM ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK DISCHARGES

Owners and/or operators of lands containing domestic animals (including pets, farm animals, and livestock) in the 

Aptos Creek Watershed must comply with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; compliance with the 

Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners and/or operators of lands used for/containing domestic animals of the requirement to comply with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the 

options owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals have for demonstrating compliance with the 

Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13267 and within six 

months of the notification by the Executive Officer, owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals will be 

required to submit one of the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner/operator of lands containing domestic animals is and will continue to be in 

compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be 

documentation submitted by the owner/operator to the Executive Officer validating current and continued 

compliance with the Prohibition. 

2) A plan for compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from domestic animals. The plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices are likely to progressively achieve the load allocations to domestic animals, with 

the ultimate goal of achieving the load allocations no later than thirteen years after Office of 

Administrative Law approval of these TMDLs. The plan must include monitoring and reporting to the 

Central Coast Water Board, demonstrating the progress toward achieving load allocations for discharges 

from domestic animals, and a self-assessment of this progress. The plan may be developed by an 

individual discharger or by or for a coalition of dischargers in cooperation with a third-party representative, 

organization, or government agency acting as the agents of owners/operators of lands containing 

domestic animals.

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements).

Tracking and Evaluation 

Every three years, beginning three years after TMDLs are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Central Coast Water Board will perform a review of implementation actions, monitoring results, and evaluations 

submitted by responsible parties of their progress toward achieving their allocations. The Central Coast Water 
June 8, 2011 IV-133

Board will use annual reports, nonpoint source pollution control implementation programs, evaluations submitted 

by responsible parties, and other available information to determine progress toward implementing required 

actions and achieving the allocations and the numeric target. 

Responsible parties will continue monitoring and reporting according to this plan for at least three years, at which 

time the Central Coast Water Board will determine the need for continuing or otherwise modifying the monitoring 

requirements. Responsible parties may also demonstrate that although water quality objectives are not being 

achieved in receiving waters, controllable sources of pathogens are not contributing to the exceedance. If this is 

the case, the Central Coast Water Board may re-evaluate the numeric target and allocations. For example, the 

Central Coast Water Board may pursue and approve a site-specific objective, based on evidence that natural or 

background sources alone were the cause of exceedances of the Basin Plan water quality objective for fecal 

indicator bacteria. 

Three-year reviews will continue until the water quality objectives are achieved. The compliance schedule for 

achieving this TMDL numeric target is 13 years after the date of approval by the Office of Administrative Law.
June 8, 2011 IV-134

IX. M. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR FECAL COLIFORM 

IN PAJARO RIVER WATERSHED WATERS (INCLUDING PAJARO 

RIVER, SAN BENITO RIVER, LLAGAS CREEK, TEQUISQUITA 

SLOUGH, SAN JUAN CREEK, CARNADERO/UVAS CREEK, BIRD 

CREEK, PESCADERO CREEK, TRES PINOS CREEK, FURLONG 

(JONES) CREEK, SANTA ANA CREEK, AND PACHECO CREEK)

The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted these TMDLs on March 20, 2009.

These TMDLs were approved by:

The State Water Resources Control Board on April 20, 2010.

The California Office of Administrative Law on July 12, 2010.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on August 3, 2010.

Problem Statement

The beneficial use of water contact recreation is not being protected in Pajaro River Watershed (including the 

following water bodies: Pajaro River, San Benito River, Llagas Creek, Tequisquita Slough, San Juan Creek, 

Carnadero/Uvas Creek, Bird Creek, Pescadero Creek, Tres Pinos Creek, Furlong (Jones) Creek, Santa Ana 

Creek, and Pacheco Creek) because fecal coliform concentrations exceed Basin Plan numeric water quality 

objectives designed to protect this beneficial use. 

Numeric Target

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not 

exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during any 30-

day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

Source Analysis

The relative order of controllable sources contributing fecal coliform in the Pajaro River Watershed, in decreasing 

order of contribution are: (1) storm drain discharges to municipally owned and operated storm sewer systems 

required to be covered by an NPDES permit (MS4s); (2) domestic animal discharges that do not discharge to 

MS4s; (3) spills and leaks from Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems; and (4) private sewer laterals 

connected to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems. Natural, uncontrollable sources also contribute fecal 

coliform in the Pajaro River Watershed. 

TMDLs and Allocations 

The TMDLs for the impaired waters of Pajaro River, San Benito River, Llagas Creek, Tequisquita Slough, San 

Juan Creek, Carnadero/Uvas Creek, Bird Creek, Pescadero Creek, Tres Pinos Creek, Furlong (Jones) Creek, 

Santa Ana Creek, and Pacheco Creek are concentration-based TMDLs applicable to each day of all seasons 

equal to the following:

Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall 

not exceed a log mean of 200 MPN per 100 mL, nor shall more than 10 percent of samples collected during 

any 30-day period exceed 400 MPN per 100 mL.

The allocations to responsible parties are shown in Table IX-M1. 
June 8, 2011 IV-135

Table IX – M - 1. Allocations and Responsible Parties

Waterbody Assigned 

Allocation

Responsible Party 

[NPDES and/or WDR number]

(Source)

Receiving Water Fecal 

Coliform Allocation

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Pajaro River1

San Benito River2

Llagas Creek3

Tequisquita Slough4

Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and Monterey Counties. 

Cities of Hollister, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Watsonville

[NPDES No. CAS000004]

(Storm Drain Discharges To MS4s Required to be 

covered by an NPDES Permit ) 

Allocation 1

Pajaro River1

San Benito River2

Llagas Creek3

Tequisquita Slough4

City of Hollister 

[WDR 87-47]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks)

City of Watsonville 

[WDR Order R3-2003-0040, NPDES No. CA0048216]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks) 

Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill via South County 

Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) 

[WDR Order R3-2004-0099, NPDES No. CA0049964]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks) 

San Juan Bautista Wastewater Treatment Facility 

[WDR Order R3-2003-0087, NPDES No. CA0047902]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks) 

Sunnyslope County Water District

[WDR Order R3-2004-0065]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks)

Tres Pinos County Water District

[WDR Order 99-101]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks)

Pajaro County Sanitation District 

[WDR Order R3-2003-0041]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems 

Spills and Leaks)

Allocation 2

Pajaro River1

San Benito River2

Llagas Creek3

Tequisquita Slough4

Owners of Private Sewer Laterals 

(Private Laterals Connected to Municipal Sanitary 

Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems)

Allocation 2

LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Waterbody Responsible Party (Source)

Pajaro River1

San Benito River2

Llagas Creek3

Tequisquita Slough4

Owners/Operators of Land Used for/Containing 

Domestic Animals

(Domestic Animal Discharges)

Allocation 1

Pajaro River1

San Benito River2

Llagas Creek3

Tequisquita Slough4

Natural Sources Allocation 1
June 8, 2011 IV-136

Allocation 1: Fecal coliform concentration, based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 

30-day period, shall not exceed a log mean of 200/100mL, nor shall more than ten percent of total 

samples during any 30-day period exceed 400/100 mL.

Allocation 2: Allocation of zero; no loading allowed from this source. 

1 The entire Pajaro River from the Pacific Ocean to San Felipe Lake outflow via the Miller’s Canal drain. Including the entire San Juan Creek 

tributary from the uppermost reach of the waterbody to the confluence with Pajaro River, and Carnadero/Uvas Creek tributary from Hollister 

Road crossing to the confluence with Pajaro River.

2 San Benito River from confluence with Pajaro River to three miles above Old Hernandez Road at Arizona Crossing. Including Bird Creek 

tributary from the uppermost reach of the waterbody to the confluence with San Benito River, the Pescadero Creek tributary from the 

uppermost reach of the waterbody to the confluence with San Benito River, and Tres Pinos Creek tributary from the uppermost reach of the 

waterbody to the confluence with San Benito River.

3 Llagas Creek from confluence with Pajaro River to Oak Glen Avenue. Including Furlong (Jones) Creek tributary from the uppermost reach 

of the waterbody to confluence with Llagas Creek.

4 Tequisquita Slough from confluence with San Felipe Lake to the uppermost reach of the waterbody. Including Santa Ana Creek tributary 

from the uppermost reach of the waterbody to Tequisquita Slough, and Pacheco Creek tributary from the uppermost reach of the waterbody 

to San Felipe Lake.

The parties responsible for the allocations to controllable sources are not responsible for the allocation to natural 

sources.

The TMDLs are considered achieved when the allocations assigned to all individual responsible parties are met, 

or when the numeric targets are consistently met.

Margin of Safety 

A margin of safety is incorporated implicitly in the TMDLs through conservative assumptions. 

Implementation Program

MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM DISCHARGES

The Central Coast Water Board will address fecal indicator bacteria (FIB), e.g. fecal coliform and/or other 

indicators of pathogens, discharged from the Counties of Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and Monterey, and the Cities 

of Hollister, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and Watsonville municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4 entities) by 

regulating the MS4 entities under the provisions of the State Water Resource Control Board’s General Permit for 

the Discharges of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (General Permit) (NPDES 

No. CAS000004). As enrollees under the General Permit, the MS4 entities must develop and implement Storm 

Water Management Program (SWMPs) that control urban runoff discharges into and from their MS4s. To 

address the MS4 entities’ TMDL wasteload allocations, the Central Coast Water Board will require the MS4 

entities to specifically target FIB in urban runoff through incorporation of Wasteload Allocation Attainment 

Program in their SWMPs.

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program describe the actions 

that will be taken by the MS4 entities to attain the TMDL wasteload allocations, and specifically address: 

1. Development of an implementation and assessment strategy; 

2. Source identification and prioritization;

3. Best management practice identification, prioritization, implementation, analysis, and effectiveness 

assessment;

4. Monitoring program development and implementation;

5. Reporting; including evaluation whether current best management practices are progressing towards 

achieving the wasteload allocations by thirteen years after the TMDLs are approved by the Office of 

Administrative Law.

6. Coordination with stakeholders; and

7. Other pertinent factors. 
June 8, 2011 IV-137

The Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program will be required by the Central Coast Water Board to address each

of these TMDLs that occur within the MS4 entities’ jurisdictions. 

The Central Coast Water Board will require the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program to be submitted at one 

of the following milestones, whichever occurs first:

1. Within one year of approval of the TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law;

2. When required by any other Water Board-issued storm water requirements (e.g., when the Phase II 

Municipal Storm Water Permit is renewed).

For an MS4 that is enrolled under the General Permit at the time of Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program 

submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program must be incorporated into the SWMP when the 

Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program is submitted. For an MS4 entity that is not enrolled under the General 

Permit at the time of the Wasteload Allocation Program submittal, the Wasteload Allocation Attainment Program 

must be incorporated into the SWMP when the SWMP is approved by the Central Coast Water Board.

The Executive Officer or the Central Coast Water Board will require information that demonstrates implementation 

of the actions described above, pursuant to applicable sections of the California Water Code and/or pursuant to 

authorities provided in the General Permit for storm water discharges.

SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS SPILLS AND LEAKS 

Entities with jurisdiction over sewer collection systems in the Pajaro River Watershed must comply with the 

Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition 

implies compliance with their load allocation for this TMDL. 

To comply with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition, the Hollister Domestic Wastewater Treatment 

Facility (WDR Order 87-47), Sunnyslope County Water District, Ridgemark Estates Subdivision, Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (WDR Order R3-2004-0065), Tres Pinos County Water District (WDR Order 99-101), San Juan 

Bautista Wastewater Treatment Facility (WDR Order R3-2003-0087, NPDES CA0047902), South County 

Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA), Cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, (WDR Order R3-2004-0099, NPDES 

CA0049964), City of Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Facility (WDR Order R3-2003-0040, NPDES 

CA0048216), and Pajaro County Sanitation District (WDR Order R3-2003-0041) (herein referred to as sanitary 

collection system jurisdictions) must continue to implement their Collection System Management Plans, as 

required by their Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits.

In addition, the sanitary collection system jurisdictions identified above and in Table IX-M-1 are required to 

improve maintenance of their sewage collection systems, including identification, correction, and prevention of 

sewage leaks in portions of the collection systems that run through or adjacent to, impaired surface waters within 

the Pajaro River Watershed. 

To this end, within six months following adoption of this TMDL by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive 

Officer will issue a letter pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC requiring: 1) submittal within one-year, a 

technical report that describes how and when the jurisdictions of the collection systems will conduct improved 

collection system maintenance in portions of the collection system most likely to affect impaired surface water 

bodies, with the end result being compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition, and 2) stream 

monitoring for fecal coliform or another fecal indicator bacteria, and reporting of these monitoring activities, and 3) 

annual reporting of self-assessment as to whether the sanitary collection system jurisdiction is in compliance with 

the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition.

PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL DISCHARGES

Individual owners and operators of private laterals to sanitary sewer collection systems are ultimately responsible 

for maintenance of their private laterals and are, therefore, responsible for complying with the Human Fecal 
June 8, 2011 IV-138

Material Discharge Prohibition; compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition implies 

compliance with their load allocation for these TMDLs. 

The Central Coast Water Board requires immediate cessation of spills from private laterals. Within three years of 

approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will notify owners and/or 

operators of private laterals to sanitary sewer collection systems (owners/operators of private laterals), in 

suspected problem areas, of this requirement and of the requirement to comply with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the owner’s/operator’s of private 

laterals options for demonstrating compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; pursuant to 

California Water Code section 13267 and within six months of the notification by the Executive Officer, 

owners/operators of private laterals will be required to submit the following for approval by the Executive Officer or 

the Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner/operator of private lateral is and will continue to be in compliance with the 

Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be certification by a sanitary collection 

system jurisdiction that owner/operator of private lateral is in compliance with the Human Fecal Material 

Discharge Prohibition, or

2) A schedule for compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition. The compliance 

schedule must include a monitoring and reporting program and milestone dates demonstrating progress 

towards compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition, with the ultimate milestone 

being compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition no later than three years (the 

exact timeframe at the discretion of the Executive Officer) from the date of the Executive Officer’s 

notification to the owner/operator requiring compliance, or

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements; WDRs or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES permit)), or

4) Clear evidence of current or scheduled compliance with the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition 

(as described in number-1 and number-2 above, respectively) through the submittal of the required 

information by a sanitary collection system jurisdiction, acting as the voluntary agents of owners/operators 

of private laterals. Note that an owner/operator of a private lateral cannot demonstrate compliance with 

the Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition through this option if: 1) a sanitary collection system 

jurisdiction is not their voluntary agent, or 2) if the owner/operator of the private lateral does not choose 

the sanitary collection system jurisdiction as their agent, or, 3) the Executive Officer or Water Board does 

not approve the evidence submitted by the sanitary collection system jurisdictions on behalf of the 

owners/operators of private laterals.

DOMESTIC ANIMAL DISCHARGES NOT REGULATED BY A PERMIT FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGES

Owners and/or operators of lands containing domestic animals in the Pajaro River Watershed must comply with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge 

Prohibition implies compliance with the load allocation for these TMDLs. 

Within three years of approval of these TMDLs by the Office of Administrative Law, the Executive Officer will 

notify owners and/or operators of lands used for/containing domestic animals of the requirement to comply with 

the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. In his notification, the Executive Officer will also describe the 

owner’s/operator’s of lands containing domestic animals options for demonstrating compliance with the Domestic 

Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; pursuant to California Water Code section 13267 and within six months of 

the notification by the Executive Officer, owners/operators of lands containing domestic animals will be required to 

submit the following for approval by the Executive Officer or the Water Board:

1) Clear evidence that the owner/operator of lands containing domestic animals is and will continue to be in 

compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition; clear evidence could be 

documentation submitted by the owner/operator to the Executive Officer validating current and continued 

compliance with the Prohibition, or 

2) A plan for compliance with the Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition. Such a plan must include a 

list of specific management practices that will be implemented to control discharges containing fecal 

material from domestic animals. The plan must also describe how implementing the identified 

management practices is likely to progressively achieve the load allocations to domestic animals, with the 

ultimate goal achieving the load allocations no later than thirteen years after Office of Administrative Law 

approval of these TMDLs. The plan must include monitoring and reporting to the Central Coast Water 
June 8, 2011 IV-139

Board, demonstrating the progressive progress toward achieving load allocations for discharges from 

domestic animals, and a self-assessment of this progress. The plan may be developed by an individual 

discharger or by or for a coalition of dischargers in cooperation with a third-party representative, 

organization, or government agency acting as the agents of owners/operators of lands containing 

domestic animals, or

3) Submittal of a Report of Waste Discharge pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 (as an 

application for waste discharge requirements; WDRs or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES permit).

Tracking and Evaluation 

Every three years, beginning three years after TMDLs are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the 

Central Coast Water Board will perform a review of implementation actions, monitoring results, and evaluations 

submitted by responsible parties of their progress towards achieving their allocations. The Central Coast Water 

Board will use annual reports, nonpoint source pollution control implementation programs, evaluations submitted 

by responsible parties, and other available information to determine progress toward implementing required 

actions and achieving the allocations and the numeric target. 

Responsible parties will continue monitoring and reporting according to this plan for at least three years, at which 

time the Central Coast Water Board will determine the need for continuing or otherwise modifying the monitoring 

requirements. Responsible parties may also demonstrate that although water quality objectives are not being 

achieved in receiving waters, controllable sources of pathogens are not contributing to the exceedance. If this is 

the case, the Central Coast Water Board may re-evaluate the numeric target and allocations. For example, the 

Central Coast Water Board may pursue and approve a site-specific objective. The site-specific objective would 

be based on evidence that natural, or background sources alone were the cause of exceedances of the Basin 

Plan water quality objective for fecal indicator bacteria. 

Three-year reviews will continue until the water quality objectives are achieved. The compliance schedule for 

achieving the TMDLs and numeric target is 13 years after the date of approval by the Office of Administrative 

Law. 
June 8, 2011 V-1

CHAPTER 5. PLANS AND POLICIES

In addition to the Implementation Plan, many other 

plans and policies direct State and Regional Board 

actions or clarify the Regional Board's intent. The 

following pages contain brief descriptions of State 

Board plans and policies and numerous Regional 

Board plans and policies. Copies of the State and 

Regional Board policies are contained in the 

Appendix.

I. STATE WATER 

RESOURCES CONTROL 

BOARD PLANS AND 

POLICIES

The State Water Resources Control Board (State 

Board) has adopted a number of plans and policies 

for Statewide water quality management including:

State Policy for Water Quality Control (1972) 

Anti-degradation Policy 

Thermal Plan 

Bays and Estuaries Policy

Power Plant Cooling Policy

Reclamation Policy

Shredder Waste Disposal Policy

Underground Storage Tank Pilot Program

Sources of Drinking Water Policy

Nonpoint Source Management Plan

Ocean Plan

Discharges of Municipal Solid Waste Policy 

Should any of these policies be amended by the 

State Board, the Regional Board will implement the 

amended version.

The following sections summarize the adopted 

policy. The complete policy is available in the 

"Attachments" section of this document.

I.A. STATE POLICY FOR 

WATER QUALITY CONTROL 

The State Board has developed a set of twelve 

general principles to implement the provisions and 

intent of the Porter-Cologne Act. These principles, 

listed below, are contained in a document called the 

State Policy for Water Quality Control, adopted on 

July 6, 1972. 

1. Water rights and quality control decisions must 

assure protection of fresh and marine waters for 

maximum beneficial use.

2. Wastewaters must be considered a part of the 

total available fresh water resource.

3. Management of supplies and wastewaters shall 

be on a regional basis for efficient utilization of 

the resource.

4. Efficient wastewater management requires a 

balanced program of source control of 

hazardous substances, treatment, reuse and 

proper disposal of effluents and residuals.

5. Substances not amenable to removal in 

treatment plants must be prevented from 

entering the system.
June 8, 2011 V-2

6. Treatment systems must provide sufficient 

removals to protect beneficial uses and aquatic 

communities.

7. Institutional and financial programs of 

consolidated systems must serve each area 

equitably.

8. Sewerage facilities must be consolidated for 

long-range economic and water quality benefits.

9. Reclamation and reuse for maximum benefit 

shall be encouraged.

10. Systems must be designed and operated for 

maximum benefit from expended funds.

11. Control methods must be based on the latest 

information.

12. Monitoring programs must be provided.

I.B. ANTI-DEGRADATION 

POLICY

On October 28, 1968, the State Water Resources 

Control Board adopted Resolution No. 68-16, 

"Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining 

High Quality of Waters in California." While requiring 

continued maintenance of existing high quality 

waters, the policy provides conditions under which a 

change in water quality is allowable. A change 

must:

1. be consistent with maximum benefit to the 

people of the State;

2. not unreasonably affect present and anticipated 

beneficial uses of water; and

3. not result in water quality less than that 

prescribed in water quality control plans or 

policies.

I.C. THERMAL PLAN

The "Water Quality Control Plan for the Control of 

Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters 

and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California," 

adopted by the State Water Resources Control 

Board on May 18, 1972, and amended September 

18, 1975, specifies water quality objectives, effluent 

quality limits, and discharge prohibitions related to 

thermal characteristics of enclosed bay and estuary 

waters and waste discharges.

I.D. BAYS AND ESTUARIES 

POLICY

The "Water Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed 

Bays and Estuaries of California," Resolution No. 

74-43, was adopted by the State Water Resources 

Control Board on May 16, 1974. Commonly referred 

to as the "Bays and Estuaries Policy," it was adopted 

specifically to provide water quality principles and 

guidelines for the affected waters.

Decisions by the Regional Boards are required to be 

consistent with the provisions designed to prevent 

water quality degradation and to protect beneficial 

uses. The policy lists principles of management that 

include a statement of the desirability of phasing out 

all discharges (exclusive of cooling waters) as soon 

as practicable. Quality requirements state 

conformability with other plans and policies. 

Discharge prohibitions are placed on:

1. new dischargers (other than those that would 

enhance the receiving waters);

2. untreated waste and waste products;

3. refuse;
June 8, 2011 V-3

4. consequential effects of mining, construction, 

agriculture, and timber harvesting;

5. materials of petroleum origin;

6. radiological, chemical, or high-level radioactive 

waste; or

7. discharge or by-pass of untreated waste.

I.E. POWER PLANT COOLING 

POLICY

The "Water Quality Control Policy on the Use and 

Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Power Plant 

Cooling" indicates the State Board's position on 

power plant cooling, specifying that fresh inland 

waters should be used for cooling only when other 

alternatives are environmentally undesirable or 

economically unsound.

I.F. RECLAMATION POLICY

The "Policy with Respect to Water Reclamation in 

California" requires the Regional Boards to conduct 

reclamation surveys and specifies reclamation 

actions to be implemented by the State and 

Regional Boards as well as other agencies.

I.G. SHREDDER WASTE 

DISPOSAL POLICY

The "Policy on the Disposal of Shredder Waste" 

designates specific conditions to be enforced by the 

Regional Board by which mechanically destructed 

car bodies, old appliances, or other 

similar castoffs can be disposed at certain landfills.

I.H. UNDERGROUND 

STORAGE TANK PILOT 

POLICY

The "Policy Regarding the Underground Storage 

Tank Pilot Program" implements a pilot program to 

fund oversight of remedial action at leaking 

underground storage tank sites, in cooperation with 

the California Department of Health Services. Oversight may be deferred to the Regional Boards.

I.I. SOURCES OF DRINKING 

WATER POLICY

The "Sources of Drinking Water" policy specifies 

which ground and surface waters are considered to 

be suitable or potentially suitable for the beneficial 

use of water supply (MUN). It allows the Regional 

Board some discretion in making MUN 

determinations.

I.J. NONPOINT SOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN

The "Nonpoint Source Management Plan", 

Resolution 88-123, was adopted by the State Water 

Resources Control Board on November 15, 1988 

pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. 

The Plan identifies nonpoint source control 

programs and milestones for their accomplishment. 

It emphasizes cooperation with 
June 8, 2011 V-4

local governments and other agencies to promote 

the implementation of Best Management Practices 

and remedial projects.

I.K. OCEAN PLAN

The "Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters 

of California," Resolution No. 90-27 was adopted by 

the State Water Resources Control Board on March 

22, 1990. This plan establishes beneficial uses and 

water quality objectives for waters of the Pacific 

Ocean adjacent to the California Coast outside of 

enclosed bays, estuaries, and coastal lagoons. 

Also, the Ocean Plan prescribes effluent quality 

requirements and management principles for waste 

discharges and specifies certain waste discharge 

prohibitions.

The Ocean Plan also provides that the State Water 

Resources Control Board shall designate Areas of 

Special Biological Significance (ASBS) and requires 

wastes to be discharged a sufficient distance from 

these areas to assure maintenance of natural water 

quality conditions.

The State Water Resources Control Board declared 

its intent to periodically revise the Plan to reflect 

water quality objectives that are necessary to protect 

beneficial uses of ocean waters and to be consistent 

with current technology.

I.L. DISCHARGES OF 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 

POLICY

The "Policy for Regulation of Discharges of 

Municipal Solid Waste", Resolution No. 93-62, was 

adopted by the State Water Resources Control 

Board on June 17, 1993. This policy implements 

State regulations of waste discharge to land 

(California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 

15) and Federal Regulations related to municipal 

solid waste disposal (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Sections 257 and 258). The policy 

directs Regional Water Quality Control Boards to 

revise or adopt, prior to the Federal deadline 

(currently October 9, 1993), Waste Discharge 

Requirements for all municipal solid waste landfills 

subject to State and federal regulations. A detailed 

description of this policy is provided in Chapter Four 

under the Resources Conservation and Recovery 

Act section.

II. RECOMMENDED 

STATE WATER 

RESOURCES CONTROL 

BOARD CONTROL 

ACTIONS

1. State policies for surface waters and for bays 

and estuaries should be further considered in 

light of the revised Ocean Plan of 1988.

2. State policies for water quality control should 

place increasing emphasis on water quality 

monitoring to determine compliance with water 

quality objectives in order to provide a firm basis 

for classification of receiving waters relative to 

Section 303(e) of Public Law 92-500.

3. Erosion and sedimentation control policies 

should be established based on (a) pilot studies 

conducted by the U. S. Soil Conservation 

Service which recommended best management 

practices for erosion problems, (b) a statewide 

study by the California Association of Resource 

Conservation Districts on institutional solutions 

to sedimentation problems, and (c) findings of 

erosion studies conducted in the Central Coast 

Region as part of nondesignated area 208 

planning. 
June 8, 2011 V-5

4. Land use planning relative to nonpoint pollution 

sources should be considered as a future 

activity, possibly as a multiagency effort; initial 

control efforts and means for effective control 

should be from local agencies. 

5. Water quality control programs should continue 

to include emphasis on total water management 

in order to permit enhancement of naturally 

degraded surface and ground waters. 

6. The State Water Resources Control Board 

should consider water quality effects when 

reviewing water rights permits.

7. Policies affecting water rights should reinforce 

water quality goals particularly as related to 

long-term ground water salinity changes. 

Adjudication of degraded ground water basins 

should be considered as a tool for 

implementation of water quality goals to be 

utilized only if other measures fail. 

8. Water supply improvements to reduce influent 

wastewater salinity made in the interest of total 

water quality management should be considered 

for partial eligibility for Clean Water Grants. 

Increased costs for grant eligibility could be in 

lieu of costs for wastewater effluent 

demineralization where such measures are 

required.

9. Water reclamation and reuse programs for 

supplementing agricultural irrigation supplies 

should be given increased emphasis. Grant 

support should be available for water short 

areas where such water demand can be 

demonstrated.

III. REGIONAL WATER 

QUALITY CONTROL 

BOARD MANAGEMENT 

PRINCIPLES 

III.A. GENERAL

1. Land use practices should assure protection of 

beneficial water uses and aquatic environmental 

values.

2. There shall be no waste discharged into areas 

which possess unique or uncommon cultural, 

scenic, aesthetic, historical or scientific values. 

Such areas will be defined by the Regional 

Board.

3. Property owners are considered ultimately 

responsible for all activities and practices that 

could result in adverse affects on water quality 

from waste discharges and surface runoff.

III.B. WASTEWATER 

RECLAMATION

1. Water quality management systems throughout 

the basin shall provide for eventual wastewater 

reclamation, but may discharge wastes to the 

aquatic environment (with appropriate discharge 

requirements) when wastewater reclamation is 

precluded by processing costs or lack of 

demand for reusable water.

2. The number of waste sources and independent 

treatment facilities shall be minimized and the 

consolidated systems shall maximize their 

capacities for wastewater reclamation, assure 

efficient management of, and meet potential 

demand for reclaimed water.

Further wastewater reclamation guidance is 

available in the Implementation Plan, Chapter Four.

III.C. DISCHARGE TO 

SURFACE WATERS
June 8, 2011 V-6

1. All discharges to the aquatic environment shall 

be considered temporary unless it is 

demonstrated that no undesirable change will 

occur in the natural receiving water quality. 

2. The quality of all surface waters of the basin 

shall be such as to permit unrestricted 

recreational use.

3. The discharge of pollutants into surface fresh 

waters shall be discontinued.

III.D. MUNICIPAL AND 

INDUSTRIAL SEWERING 

ENTITIES

1. Municipal and industrial sewering entities should 

implement comprehensive regulations to prohibit 

the discharge to the sewer system of 

substances listed below which may be controlled 

at their source:

Chlorinated hydrocarbons;

Toxic substances; 

Harmful substances that may concentrate in 

food webs;

Excessive heat ;

Radioactive substances;

Grease, oil, and phenolic compounds;

Mercury or mercury compounds;

Excessively acidic and basic substances:

Heavy metals such as lead, copper, zinc, etc.; 

and

Other known deleterious substances.

2. Sewering entities should implement 

comprehensive industrial waste ordinances to 

control the quantity and quality of organic 

compounds, suspended and settleable 

substances, dissolved solids, and all other 

materials which may cause overloading of the 

municipal waste treatment facility.

III.E. GROUND WATER

1. Ground water recharge with high quality water 

shall be encouraged.

2. In all ground water basins known to have an 

adverse salt balance, total salt content of the 

discharge shall not exceed that which normally 

results from domestic use, and control of salinity 

shall be required by local ordinances which 

effectively limit municipal and industrial 

contributions to the sewerage system.

3. Wastewaters percolated into the ground waters 

shall be of such quality at the point where they 

enter the ground so as to assure the continued 

usability of all ground waters of the basin.
June 8, 2011 V-7

III.F. INDIVIDUAL, 

ALTERNATIVE, AND 

COMMUNITY SYSTEMS

The Regional Board intends to discourage high 

density development on septic tank disposal 

systems and generally will require increased size of 

parcels with increasing slopes and slower 

percolation rates. Consideration of development will 

be based upon the percolation rates and 

engineering reports supplied. In any questionable 

situation, engineer-designed systems will be 

required.

Further information concerning on-site systems can 

be found in Chapter Four.

III.G. EROSION AND 

SEDIMENTATION CONTROL

1. General recommendations for erosion control, 

numbered one through six under "Land 

Disturbance Activities" in the Implementation 

Plan, Chapter Four, are considered by the 

Regional Board to be Best Management 

Practices (BMP's), as are those BMP's identified 

in approved areawide Water Quality 

Management Plans.

2. Local units of government 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 and other activities that might degrade 

the quality of waters of the State.

3. In implementing BMP's through local units of 

government, or through State and federal 

agencies for lands under their control, working 

relationships, priorities, and time schedules will 

be defined in management agency agreements 

between the areawide waste treatment planning 

agency and the local management agency. 

Agreements will be reviewed and updated 

annually to reflect recent achievements, new 

information and new concerns.

4. Regional Board participation in sediment control 

programs shall include assistance in the 

establishment of local control programs, 

participation in the determination of water quality 

problems, and a cooperative program evaluation 

with local units of government. Regional Board 

enforcement authority will be exercised where 

local volunteer programs fail to correct sediment 

problems within a reasonable period.

5. Emergency projects undertaken or approved by 

a public agency and necessary to prevent or 

mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, 

property, or essential public services from an 

unexpected occurrence involving a clear and 

imminent danger are exempt from this chapter 

providing such exemption is in the public 

interest.

6. Regulation of sediment discharges from routine 

annual agricultural operations, such as tilling, 

grazing, and land grading and from construction

of agricultural buildings is waived except where 

such activity is causing severe erosion and 

causing, or threatening to cause, a pollution or 

nuisance.

7. Regulation of discharges from State and federal 

lands managed by agencies operating in 

accordance with approved management agency 

agreements is waived except where such 

activity is causing, or threatening to cause, a 

pollution or nuisance.

"Control Actions" and "Actions by Other Authorities" 

in this chapter and the Implementation Plan, Chapter 

Four, contain further information regarding erosion 

and sedimentation control.
June 8, 2011 V-8

IV. DISCHARGE 

PROHIBITIONS

Due to unique cultural, scenic, aesthetic, historical, 

scientific, and ecological values of the Central 

Coastal Basin, and the necessity to protect the 

public health and the desire to achieve water quality 

objectives, the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board has established certain discharge 

prohibitions.

IV.A. ALL WATERS

Waste discharges shall not contain materials in 

concentrations which are hazardous to human, 

plant, animal, or aquatic life.

The discharge of oil or any residual products of 

petroleum to the waters of the State, except in 

accordance with waste discharge requirements or 

other provisions of Division 7 of the California Water 

Code, is prohibited.

Discharge of elevated temperature wastes into 

COLD intrastate waters is prohibited where it may 

cause the natural temperature of the receiving water 

to exceed limits specified in Chapter Three, Water 

Quality Objectives.

IV.A.1. TOXIC OR HAZARDOUS 

POLLUTANTS

Discharge of toxic or hazardous material that 

violates: 1) the toxicity objective for all waters as 

designated in the Ocean Plan [See Appendix A-5] 

and Objectives for All Inland Surface Waters, 

Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries [See Chapter Three], 

or 2) Proposition 65 limitations for 

municipal/domestic water supply waters is 

prohibited.

Discharge to publicly owned treatment works is 

prohibited in concentrations that:

1. Exceeds applicable federal pretreatment 

standards;

2. Endangers safe and continuous operation of 

wastewater treatment facilities;

3. Endangers public health and safety; and

4. Causes violation of applicable water quality 

objectives.

IV.B. INLAND WATERS

Wastes discharged to surface waters shall be 

essentially free of toxic substances, grease, oil, and 

phenolic compounds.

Waste discharges to the following inland waters are 

prohibited:

1. All surface freshwater impoundments and their 

immediate tributaries.

2. All surface waters within the San Lorenzo River, 

Aptos-Soquel, and San Antonio Creek 

Subbasins and all water contact recreation 

areas except where benefits can be realized 

from direct discharge of reclaimed water.

3. All deadend sloughs receiving little flushing 

action from land drainage or natural runoff.

4. All coastal surface streams and natural 

drainageways that flow directly to the ocean 

within the Santa Cruz Coastal, Monterey 

Coastal, San Luis Obispo Coastal from the 

Monterey County line to the northern boundary 

of San Luis Obispo Creek drainage, and the

Santa Barbara Coastal Subbasins except where 

discharge is associated with an approved 

wastewater reclamation program.

5. The Santa Maria River downstream from the 

Highway One bridge.

6. The Santa Ynez River downstream from the salt 

water barrier.

Domestic Animal Waste Discharge Prohibition:
June 8, 2011 V-9

Discharges containing fecal material from domestic 

animals to the waters of the State that cause or 

contribute to exceedance of water quality objectives 

in the areas listed below are prohibited. Examples 

of domestic animals include, but are not limited to, 

horses, cattle, goats, sheep, dogs, cats or any other 

animal(s) in the care of any person(s).

1. Pajaro River Watershed

2. Soquel Lagoon Watershed

3. Aptos Creek Watershed

4. San Lorenzo River Watershed.

Human Fecal Material Discharge Prohibition:

Discharges containing fecal material from humans to 

the waters of the State in the areas listed below are 

prohibited. Exceptions to this prohibition include 

discharges in accordance with Waste Discharge 

Requirements or other provisions of the California 

Water Code, Division 7, as amended:

1. Pajaro River Watershed

2. Soquel Lagoon Watershed

3. Aptos Creek Watershed

4. San Lorenzo River Watershed.

IV.C. WATERS SUBJECT TO 

TIDAL ACTION

The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or 

biological warfare agent or high level radioactive 

waste into the ocean is prohibited.

Waste discharges to the following areas are 

prohibited.

1. In the northern extreme of Monterey Bay, 

inshore from an imaginary line extending from 

Santa Cruz Point (36 -57.0'N, 122 -01.5'W) to 

the mouth of the Pajaro River (36 -51.0'N, 

121 -48.6'W) and in ocean waters within a three 

(3) mile radius of Point Pinos (36 -38.3'N, 

121 -56.0'W), excepting the area described in 

No. 2 below.

2. In the southern extreme of Monterey Bay, 

inshore from an imaginary line extending from 

Point Pinos (36 -38.3'N, 121 -56.0'W) to the 

mouth of the Salinas River (36 -44.9'N, 121 -

48.3'W).

Discharges to the Monterey Bay Prohibition Zone 

from desalinization units and circulating seawater 

system discharges may be permitted after each 

proposal satisfies California Environmental Quality 

Act requirements and completes the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System process.
June 8, 2011 V-10

IV.C.1. AREAS OF SPECIAL 

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Discharge of waste is prohibited where it will alter 

natural water quality conditions in Areas of Special 

Biological Significance. Areas of Special Biological 

Significance are:

1. Ano Nuevo Point and Island, San Mateo County, 

including ocean waters within three (3) nautical 

miles offshore and defined by extensions of 

Cascade Creek on the north and the Santa 

Cruz-San Mateo County line on the south.

2. Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge and 

Hopkins Marine Life Refuge, Monterey County, 

including Monterey Bay waters bounded by 

Point Alones on the east, by Point Pinos on the 

west, and extending offshore to the 60-foot 

depth contour (about 0.7 miles).

3. Carmel Bay, Monterey County, including all bay 

waters enclosed by an imaginary line extending 

between Pescadero Point and Granite Point.

4. Point Lobos Ecological Reserve, Monterey 

County, including ocean waters within onequarter (0.25) mile offshore from Granite Point 

southerly to the southernmost boundary of Point 

Lobos Reserve State Park.

5. Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park, Monterey 

County, including ocean waters within an area 

extending about one (1.0) mile offshore and 

about two and one-half (2.5) miles south of 

Partington Point.

6. Salmon Creek, Monterey County, including 

ocean waters within one-thousand (1000) feet or 

more offshore, bounded on the south by an 

extension of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo 

County line, and extending northward about 

three (3) miles.

7. San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz 

Islands, Santa Barbara County, including ocean 

waters within about one (1) nautical mile 

offshore.

The discharge of municipal and industrial waste 

sludge and sludge digester supernatant directly to 

the ocean, or into a waste stream that discharges to 

the ocean without further treatment, is prohibited.

The bypassing of untreated waste to the ocean is 

prohibited.

Excepting vessel washdown waters, disposal of 

waste matter or untreated waste from vessel to tidal 

water is prohibited.

The discharge of oil or grease, from other than 

natural sources, which produces a visible or 

measurable effect to tidal waters of the basin is 

prohibited.

New thermal waste discharges to coastal waters, 

enclosed bays and estuaries having a maximum 

temperature greater than 4 F above the natural 

temperature of the receiving water are prohibited.

IV.D. GROUND WATERS

Wastes discharged to ground waters shall be free of 

toxic substances in excess of accepted drinking 

water standards; taste, odor, or color producing 

substances; and nitrogenous compounds in 

quantities which could result in a ground water 

nitrate concentration above 45mg/l.
June 8, 2011 V-11

IV.E. OTHER SPECIFIC 

PROHIBITION SUBJECTS

Other prohibitions exist which pertain to the following 

topics. These prohibitions can be found under the 

respective heading in the Implementation Plan.

Mushroom Farms Operation Prohibitions

Individual, Alternative, and Community Sewage 

Disposal Systems Prohibitions

Land Disturbance Prohibitions

Solid Waste Discharge Prohibitions

Watsonville Slough Watershed Livestock Waste 

Discharge Prohibition

IV.F. EXCEPTIONS TO BASIN 

PLAN REQUIREMENTS

The Regional Board may, subsequent to a public 

hearing, grant exceptions to any provision of this 

Plan where the Regional Board determines:

1. The exception will not compromise protection of 

waters for beneficial uses; and

2. The public interest will be served.

Regional Board exceptions will be effective upon 

State Board approval, unless exceptions involve 

surface water beneficial use designations or surface 

water quality objectives (i.e., federally accepted 

water quality standards). Such water quality 

standard related exceptions will also require 

Environmental Protection Agency approval to 

become effective.

V. CONTROL ACTIONS

Specific actions can be taken to control water 

quality. These are specified below.

V.A. WASTE DISCHARGE 

REQUIREMENTS

1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board will 

implement water quality control plan provisions 

through establishment or requirements and 

timetables for compliance with plan actions.

2. Waste discharge requirements will be 

established for all (operating) solid waste sites 

and where inactivated sites may contribute to 

water quality impairment.

3. Waste discharge requirements will be 

established for all existing oil well fields, mines, 

or other well fields which threaten water quality.

4. Waste discharge requirements will be 

established for all irrigation, feedlot, dairy, and 

poultry operations which are so located as to 

pose a clear and direct threat to water quality; 

such operations need not be so large as to 

require a permit under NPDES.
June 8, 2011 V-12

V.B. STATE CLEAN WATER 

GRANTS OR LOANS

1. Priorities for State Clean Water Grants or Loans 

will be ordered by the Regional Water Quality 

Control Board and provide ever increasing 

emphasis toward correction of basin water 

quality problems.

2. Water supply improvements (which encourage 

cost-effective water quality management) 

beyond normal source control measures (i.e., 

water supply quality enhancement by treatment 

or other means in lieu of effluent 

demineralization) will be recommended for 

funding.

V.C. SALT DISCHARGE

1. Emphasize control of brine disposal into public 

sewer systems by requiring affected dischargers 

to comply with normal salt increments, to adopt 

salt source control ordinances, and to conduct 

wastewater monitoring programs.

2. Minimize degradation of water during transport 

from points of use; minimize leakage of poor 

quality water during transport from salt affected 

areas through salt free lands to salt sinks for 

disposal.

3. Regulate importation of water into any basin or 

subbasin and regulate the reuse of waters in 

upstream portions of subbasins which is of 

poorer quality than existing or imported supplies. 

If such import or transport to up-slope areas for 

reuse is allowed, take suitable steps to mitigate 

short and long term adverse effects of increased 

salt load resulting from this recycling.

4. Increase recharge of underground water storage 

basins (where recharge is possible) using 

surplus winter or spring runoff waters.

5. Actively support measures designed to protect 

and to improve quality of waters imported into 

areas with unfavorable or poor salt balance.

6. Regulate reclamation of new lands which would 

contribute large quantities of salts or pollutants 

to water supplies.

7. Where water supplies are limited, restrict use of 

reclaimed waters to existing irrigated acreage 

rather than develop new irrigated acreage to 

utilize the reclaimed water.

V.D. INDIVIDUAL, 

ALTERNATIVE, AND 

COMMUNITY SEWAGE 

DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

Unsewered areas having high density (one acre lots 

or smaller) should be organized into septic tank 

management districts and sewerage feasibility 

studies should be encouraged in potential problem 

areas. Local implementation should be encouraged 

by Regional Board action.

V.E. AGENCY 

COORDINATION

The Regional Water Quality Control Board will 

initiate coordination with the appropriate Coastal 

Commission, as well as other State, federal, and 

local agencies which possess related or overlapping 

planning responsibilities.
June 8, 2011 V-13

V.F. ANIMAL CONFINEMENT 

OPERATIONS

The California Code of Regulations, Title 23, 

Chapter 15, Section 2601 defines a confined animal 

facility as "any place where cattle, calves, sheep, 

swine, horses, mules, goats, fowl, or other domestic 

animals are corralled, penned, tethered, or 

otherwise enclosed or held and where feeding is by 

means other than grazing."

1. Animal confinement facilities plus adjacent crop 

land under the control of the operator shall have 

the capacity to retain surface drainage from 

manure storage areas plus any washwater 

during a 25-year 24-hour storm. 

2. Surface drainage, including water from roofed 

areas, shall be prevented from running through 

manure storage areas.

3. Animal confinement facilities, including retention 

ponds shall be protected from overflow to 

stream channels during 20-year peak stream 

flows for existing facilities and 100-year peak 

stream flows for new facilities.

4. Retention ponds shall be lined with or underlain 

by soils containing at least ten percent clay and 

not more than ten percent gravel or artificial 

material of equivalent impermeability.

5. Washwater and surface drainage from manure 

storage areas shall be contained, applied to crop 

lands, or discharged to treatment systems 

subject to approval by the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board.

6. Animals in confinement shall be prevented from 

entering any surface waters within the confined 

area.

7. Lands that have received animal wastes shall be 

managed to minimize erosion and runoff. Dry 

manures applied to cultivated crop lands should 

be incorporated into the soil soon after 

application.

8. Animal wastes shall be managed to prevent 

nuisances in manure storage areas.

9. Manure storage areas shall be managed to 

minimize percolation of water into underlying 

soils; this may be accomplished by routing 

drainage to impervious storage areas, land 

applications, relocation of existing lots and, in 

the case of new locations, by selecting more 

impervious soils for manure storage areas.

10. Animal confinement facilities shall have 

adequate surface drainage to prevent 

continuous accumulation of surface waters in 

corrals and feed yards; drainage should be 

routed to impervious storage areas or applied to 

land.

11. Application of manures and washwaters to crop 

lands shall be at rates which are reasonable for 

crop, soil, climate, special local situations, 

management system and type of manure. 

12. A monitoring program may be required by the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board as a 

condition to issuance or waiver of waste 

discharge requirements.

Further animal confinement information can be 

found in Chapter Four in the Nonpoint Source 

Measures section under Agricultural Water and 

Wastewater Management.

V.G. EROSION AND 

SEDIMENTATION

1. Erosion from nonpoint pollution sources shall be 

minimized through implementation of BMP's 

(identified under "Management Principles" and 
June 8, 2011 V-14

described under "Land Disturbance Activities" in 

Chapter Four's "Nonpoint Source Measures" 

section.

2. All necessary control measures for minimizing 

erosion and sedimentation, whether structural or 

vegetal, shall be properly established prior to 

November 15 each year.

3. All structural and vegetal measures taken to 

control erosion and sedimentation shall be 

properly maintained.

4. A filter strip of appropriate width, and consisting 

of undisturbed soil and riparian vegetation or its 

equivalent, shall be maintained, wherever 

possible, between significant land disturbance 

activities and watercourses, lakes, bays, 

estuaries, marshes, and other water bodies. For 

construction activities, minimum width of the 

filter strip shall be thirty feet, wherever possible 

as measured along the ground surface to the 

highest anticipated water line.

5. Design and maintenance of erosion and 

sediment control structures, (e.g., debris and 

settling basins, drainage ditches, culverts, etc.) 

shall comply with accepted engineering 

practices.

6. Cover crops shall be established by seeding 

and/or mulching, or other equally effective 

measures, for all disturbed areas not otherwise 

protected from excessive erosion. 

7. Land shall be developed in increments of 

workable size that can be completed during a 

single construction season. Graded slope 

length shall not be excessive and erosion and 

sediment control measures shall be coordinated 

with the sequence of grading, development, and 

construction operations.

8. Use of soil sterilants is discouraged and should 

be minimized.

Further erosion and sedimentation information can 

be found in other areas of this chapter as well as 

the Implementation Plan, Chapter Four, under 

"Land Disturbance Activities." 

V.H. ACTIONS BY OTHER 

AUTHORITIES

V.H.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

1. Federal agencies directly affected by the facility 

plans involving consolidation with other 

communities should comply with applicable 

provisions of the Basin Plan (e.g., Fort Ord on 

the Monterey Peninsula is shown as part of 

municipal wastewater sewerage consolidation); 

agency policies favoring plan recommendations 

are encouraged.

2. Federal agencies otherwise affected by plan 

provisions should signify their compliance or 

concern with plan recommendations; time at 

public hearings will be provided for this purpose.

V.H.2. ASSOCIATION OF 

MONTEREY BAY AREA 

GOVERNMENTS

The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments 

(AMBAG) should coordinate with local agencies and 

the Regional Board relative to implementation of 

water quality control plans in that area.
June 8, 2011 V-15

V.H.3. SEPTIC TANK 

MANAGEMENT AGENCIES

1. County governments should revise septic tank 

ordinances to conform with basin plan

recommendations and State Board guidelines. 

2. Formation of septic tank management districts 

within existing local agencies should be 

accomplished in areas where directed by 

Regional Board action.

V.H.4. WATER MANAGEMENT 

AGENCIES

Conjunctive ground water-surface water 

management should continue to be encouraged by 

water management agencies, both in terms of 

storage and recharge operations and containment 

and routing of highly mineralized surface waters to 

prevent recharge. Examples in the Salinas Subbasin 

include storage of wet weather flows and recharge 

from a reservoir on Arroyo Seco and containment to 

prevent recharge of highly mineralized surface 

waters in streams such as Pancho Rico Creek.

V.H.5. SOLID WASTE 

MANAGEMENT

Preparation of solid waste management plans by all 

counties in the basin should be accomplished as 

required by the Nejedly-Z'berg-Dills Solid Waste 

Management and Resource Recovery Act of 1972. 

V.H.6. AGRICULTURAL 

MANAGEMENT

Local agricultural representatives and the University 

of California extension service should maintain 

liaison with the Regional Water Quality Control 

Board and the State Board relative to agricultural 

wastewater management.

V.H.7. OFFSHORE OIL

Water quality in offshore oil lease areas should be

monitored by State and federal agencies preferably 

by arrangements with independent oceanographic 

institutions.

V.H.8. SALINITY MANAGEMENT

Salt source control measures should be 

implemented by municipalities having excessive 

mineral quality in wastewaters discharged to land or 

inland waters; control of salinity through water 

supply improvements is recommended. 

V.H.9. SEAWATER INTRUSION

Water Management Plans should be prepared and 

adopted by Monterey County for the Salinas ground 

water basin and the Pajaro Valley Water 

Management Agency for the Pajaro ground water 

basin. These management plans should include 

immediate actions these agencies can take to help 

alleviate seawater intrusion as well as measures to 

stop seawater intrusion from advancing. These 

agencies should remediate seawater intrusion as a 

long-term goal.
June 8, 2011 V-16

Local and State agencies having jurisdiction to help 

control seawater intrusion should assist in 

implementing seawater intrusion remedies.

V.H.10. EROSION AND 

SEDIMENTATION CONTROL

1. The federal government should increase its 

support of erosion and sediment control 

programs by increasing its technical staffs, 

increasing cost-share funds, increasing the 

availability of low-interest loans, and changing 

its income tax laws to encourage the use of Best 

Management Practices for erosion and sediment 

control. 

2. The State of California should establish an 

erosion and sediment control program that 

includes incentives for the individual - such as 

cost-sharing, changes in State law that would 

reduce property taxes for enduring erosion and 

sediment control practices, and incentives 

through state income taxes. 

3. Resource Conservation Districts within the 

Central Coast Region should develop 

management agency agreements with the 

Regional Board agreeing to work jointly with the 

Regional Board to integrate soil and water 

resource programs in the application of Best 

Management Practices to correct existing 

erosion and sediment problems and to prevent 

new problems from occurring. 

4. Local units of government should improve land 

use plans to establish a clear policy, and shall 

adopt or improve ordinances to include definitive 

performance standards, for the control of 

erosion and sedimentation, including 

consistency with this Basin Plan and Best 

Management Practices identified under Regional 

Board "Management Principles."

5. Local units of government developing Local 

Coastal Programs shall establish a clear policy 

on erosion and sedimentation and adopt an 

ordinance consistent with Best Management 

Practices for their land areas within the Coastal 

Zone.

6. Resource Conservation Districts, the U.S.D.A. 

Soil Conservation Service, the California 

Department of Transportation, and the 

Extension Service, in conjunction with the cities 

and counties, should develop and carry out an 

erosion and sediment control training program 

for employees who check erosion and sediment 

control plans and who enforce local ordinances 

and regulations relating to erosion and sediment 

control practices. 

7. Counties and cities should work with the 

Regional Board to identify priorities, time 

schedules, and limitations and to negotiate 

management agency agreements concerning 

implementation of Best Management Practices 

for control of erosion and sedimentation.

8. Review and assessment of erosion and 

sediment control plans for new land 

developments in those counties and cities that 

have signed management agency agreements 

with the Board will be processed entirely by that 

county or city.

VI. REGIONAL BOARD 

POLICIES

Formal specific policies adopted by the Regional 

Board are presented below according to various 

categories.
June 8, 2011 V-17

VI.A. SEWERAGE FACILITIES 

AND SEPTIC TANKS IN 

URBANIZING AREAS IN THE 

CENTRAL COAST REGION

Resolution 69-01: Adopting Policy Statement 

Regarding Sewerage Facilities and Septic Tanks in 

Urbanizing Areas in the Central Coast Region.

This policy prohibits septic tank or community 

systems unless particular criteria are satisfied.

VI.B. SEPTIC TANKS

1. Resolution 86-02: Acceptance of Monterey 

County Board of Supervisor's Ordinance 

Applying Development Restrictions to the Bay 

Hills (Bay Farms/Hillcrest) Area.

This policy accepts Monterey County's 

moratorium in lieu of a Regional Board 

prohibition. Further, the policy requested a 

compliance schedule to eliminate discharge 

from individual sewage disposal systems and 

the State Water Resources Control Board is 

requested to rank this project Class "A" on the 

Clean Water Grant project priority list.

2. Resolution 87-05: Acceptance of Monterey 

County Board of Supervisor's Ordinance 

Applying Development Restrictions to the area 

within the San Lucas County Water District.

This policy accepts Monterey County's 

moratorium in lieu of a Regional Board 

prohibition. Further, the policy requested a 

compliance schedule to eliminate discharge 

from individual sewage disposal systems and 

the State Water Resources Control Board is 

requested to rank this project Class "A" on the 

Clean Water Grant project priority list.

Further information concerning on-site system 

development restrictions can be found in Chapter 

Four.

VI.D. AREA OF SPECIAL 

BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

(ASBS)

Resolution 76-10: Recommendation to the State 

Water Resources Control Board Concerning the 

Designation of Terrace Point in Santa Cruz County 

as an Area of Special Biological Significance.

This policy recommended the State Water 

Resources Control Board to not designate Terrace 

Point as an Area of Special Biological Significance. 

The State Board concurred with the Regional Board 

in Resolution 77-21.

Further information concerning ASBS areas can be 

found in Chapter Two.

VI.E. LEGISLATIVE MATTERS

Resolution 78-04: Supporting Approval of the Clean 

Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978.

This policy expressed support for Proposition Two 

and urged California voters to support the 

proposition.

VI.F. PROHIBITION ZONES

Resolution 79-06: Resolution Regarding Marina 

County Water District's Petition to Delete the 

Southern Monterey Bay Discharge Prohibition Zone 

from the Basin Plan.

This policy considers Marina County Water District 

challenge to the Southern Monterey Bay prohibition 

zone. This policy resolves the Southern Monterey 

Bay prohibition zone is appropriate.

Regional Board adopted prohibition zones for tidal 

waters can be found under "Waters Subject to Tidal 

Action" under "Discharge Prohibitions" in this 

chapter.
June 8, 2011 V-18

VI.G. SAN LORENZO VALLEY

Resolution 87-04: Certification of Santa Cruz 

County's Wastewater Management Program for the 

San Lorenzo River Watershed.

This policy certifies Santa Cruz County's 

Wastewater Management Program for the San 

Lorenzo Valley is adequate to satisfy the loan 

condition authorized by Chapter 962 of the 1986 

State Statues.

VI.H. HIGHWAY GROOVING 

RESIDUES

Resolution 89-04: Adopting Policy Regarding 

Disposal of Highway Grooving Residues.

This policy specifies conditions for highway grooving 

residue disposal.

VI.I. WAIVER OF WASTE 

DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

Resolution 89-04: Waiver of Regulation of Specific 

Types of Waste Dischargers.

State law allows Regional Boards to waive waste 

discharge requirements (WDRs) for a specific 

discharge or types of discharges where it is not 

against the public interest (California Water Code 

Section 13269). These waivers are conditional and 

may be terminated at any time.

On April 15, 1983, the Regional Board held a public 

hearing regarding the types and nature of waste 

discharges considered for waiver. Following this 

hearing, the Regional Board established certain 

discharges which waived WDRs. The types of 

dischargers which may be waived are shown in the 

appendix.

VI.J. INTERPRETATION OF 

MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

This policy clarifies Regional Board minimum parcel 

size requirements for on-site systems contained in 

Chapter Four of this document.

A copy of this policy is shown in the appendix.

VI.K. APPRECIATION FOR 

DISCHARGER COMPLIANCE

Resolution 93-04: Appreciation for Discharger 

Compliance.

This policy addresses the manner in which the 

Regional Board will protect water quality protection 

and improvement at the most cost effective manner 

to society. A copy of the policy is shown in the 

appendix.
June 8, 2011 V-1

CHAPTER 6. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 1

II. OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................................. 1

III. QUALITY CONTROL .................................................................................................................................... 2

IV. REGULATORY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................................... 2

IV.A. COMPLIANCE MONITORING................................................................................................................ 2

IV.B. COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION .............................................................................................................. 3

IV.C. AERIAL SURVEILLANCE...................................................................................................................... 3

V. AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................. 3

V.A. STATE MONITORING PROGRAMS...................................................................................................... 3

V.A.1. SURFACE WATER AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM .................................................................. 3

V.A.2. TOXIC SUBSTANCE MONITORING PROGRAM ................................................................................ 4

V.A.3. STATE MUSSEL WATCH PROGRAM ................................................................................................. 5

V.A.4. GROUNDWATER AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT...................................................... 6

V.A.4.a. CALIFORNIA AQUIFER SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT ......................................................... 6

V.A.4.b. VOLUNTARY DOMESTIC WELL ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 7

V.A.5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY MONITORING ACT OF 2001 ................................................................. 7

V.B. REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS............................................................................................... 7

V.B.1 CENTRAL COAST AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ..................................................................... 7

V.C. ASSESSMENTS..................................................................................................................................... 8

V.C.1. STATE WATER QUALITY INVENTORY (305(b)) REPORT ................................................................. 8

V.C.2. STATE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT REPORT .......................................................................... 9

V.C.3. CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS.............................................. 9

V.C.4. CENTRAL COAST AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS..................................... 10

V.C.4.a. SURFACE WATER ASSESSMENTS .......................................................................................... 10

V.C.4.b. GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENTS............................................................................................. 10

V.D. OTHER MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES.................................................................. 10

I. INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of a water quality control 

program cannot be judged without the 

information supplied by a comprehensive and 

systematic monitoring and assessment program. 

This chapter describes statewide and regional 

monitoring and assessment programs designed 

to provide scientific information on water quality 

in the Central Coast Region. The Regional 

Board uses information produced by these 

programs to satisfy requirements of both the 

federal Clean Water Act 

(http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/) and 

applicable portions of the state’s Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act.

Monitoring information is presented for both 

regulatory and ambient monitoring programs at 

the State and Regional level. Regulatory 

monitoring programs address compliance issues 

related to discharges to waters of the State. 

Ambient monitoring programs address overall 

quality of waters of the State, generally without 

regard to specific dischargers.

II. OBJECTIVES

General objectivesof statewide and regional

monitoring and assessment programs are:

1. To measure the achievement of water quality 

goals and objectives specified in this plan.

2. To measure specific effects of water quality 

changes on established beneficial uses.

3. To measure background conditions of water 

quality and long-term trends in water quality. 

4. To locate and identify sources of water 

pollution that pose an acute, cumulative, 

and/or chronic threat to the environment.
June 8, 2011 V-2

5. To provide information needed to correlate 

receiving water quality to mass emissions of 

pollutants by waste dischargers.

6. To provide data for determining waste 

discharger compliance with permit 

conditions.

7. To measure waste loads discharged to 

receiving waters and to identify the limits of 

their effect, and in water quality limited 

segments to prepare waste load allocations 

necessary to achieve water quality control.

8. To provide documentation necessary to 

support enforcement of permit conditions 

and waste discharge requirements.

9. To provide data needed to carry on the 

continuing planning process.

10. To measure the effects of water rights

decisions on water quality and to guide the 

State Board in its responsibility to regulate 

unappropriated water for the control of 

quality.

11. To provide a clearinghouse for the collection 

and dissemination of water quality data 

gathered by other agencies and private 

parties cooperating in the program.

12. To prepare reports on water quality 

conditions as required by federal and State 

regulations and other users requesting water 

quality data.

III. QUALITY CONTROL 

Federal regulations and State policy require the 

preparation and implementation of Quality 

Assurance/Quality Control Plans for most 

monitoring carried out by the Regional Board's 

staff or its contractors. Regional Board 

monitoring activities are usually conducted under 

the Quality Assurance Program Plan developed 

for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring 

Program (SWAMP). 

Sample analysis generally must be conducted by 

a State-certified laboratory ;the laboratory must 

have an approved Quality Assurance/Quality 

Control program and must be certified under the 

California Department of Health Services (DHS) 

Accreditation Program. In some instances, DHS 

certification may not be required, provided the 

laboratory has appropriate performance based 

standards.

IV. REGULATORY 

MONITORING AND 

ASSESSMENT 

IV.A. COMPLIANCE 

MONITORING

A significant component of the State’s regulatory 

monitoring relates specifically to discharges of 

pollutants from known sources. All entities 

holding Regional Board Discharge Orders must 

conduct regular sampling and analysis of waste 

released to surface and ground waters. Entities 

granted a discharge waiver may also be subject 

to monitoring requirements as a condition of the 

waiver. 

The specific chemical and physical parameters 

to monitor, types of sampling and analyses (e.g., 

waste stream sampling, toxicity tests, etc.), 

frequency, and other specific requirements are 

determined on a case-by-case basis according to 

the nature of the discharge and potential 

environmental effects. Each Order or waiver 

issued by the Regional Board describes the 

specific compliance monitoring requirements for 

that Order or waiver holder. 

Monitoring data collected by point source 

dischargers and nonpoint pollution control 

programs are used to:

Determine compliance with and provide 

documentation to support enforcement of Order

or waiver conditions;

Provide information needed to relate 

receiving water quality to mass emission of 

pollutants by dischargers.

Discharger self-monitoring reports, generated as 

a result of an Order, are collected and reviewed 

by Regional Board staff for compliance. Any 

necessary enforcement actions are the 

responsibility of, and are carried out by, the 

Regional Board. Self-monitoring reports are 

normally submitted by the discharger on a 
June 8, 2011 V-3

regular basis (monthly, quarterly, or semiannually) as specified by the Order conditions.

Compliance monitoring includes a control 

procedure whereby Regional Board personnel 

periodically visit each discharger on both an 

announced and unannounced "Facility 

Inspection" basis. The intent of announced visits 

is to work with the discharger to review his 

procedures in order to assure quality control. 

The intent of the unannounced inspections is to 

survey the operation, inspect the discharge area, 

and collect, check, or reference samples. Data 

from self-monitoring may also be supplemented 

with information obtained by Regional Board staff 

through special studies, such as those 

characterizing the variability of the discharge, 

pollutant levels in nearby receiving water and 

biota, and characterization of pollutant loads 

attributable to urban runoff. 

IV.B. COMPLAINT 

INVESTIGATION

Complaint Monitoring involves investigation of 

complaints of citizens and public or 

governmental agencies on the discharge of 

pollutants or creation of nuisance conditions. It 

is the responsibility of the Regional Board to 

address the complaint, including preparation of 

reports, letters, or other follow-up actions, to 

document the observed conditions, and to inform 

the State Board, complainant, and discharger of 

the observed conditions. 

IV.C. AERIAL 

SURVEILLANCE

Aerial surveillance is used primarily to gather 

photographic records of discharges, water quality 

conditions, and conditions at solid waste disposal 

sites in the Region. Aerial surveillance is 

particularly effective because of the overall view 

of a facility that is obtained and because many 

facilities can be observed in a short period of 

time. 

V. AMBIENT 

MONITORING AND 

ASSESSMENT

V.A. STATE MONITORING 

PROGRAMS

Section 13160 of the Porter-Cologne Water 

Quality Control Act delegates primary 

responsibility for coordination and control of 

water quality in California to the State Board. 

Section 13163 of the Act states that in 

conducting this mission, the State Board is to 

coordinate water quality investigations, 

recognizing that other State agencies may have 

primary statutory responsibility for such 

investigations.Pursuant to these mandates, the 

State Board has established multiple water 

quality monitoring programs for California. Other 

agencies that conduct water-quality monitoring

include the California Department of Health

Services (DHS), California Department of Water 

Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish 

and Game (DFG), California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation (DPR), California 

Department of Toxic Substances Control 

(DTSC), Federal Bureau of Reclamation, the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS), and

the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA).

V.A.1. SURFACE WATER

AMBIENT MONITORING 

PROGRAM 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) direct 

water quality programs to implement efforts 

intended to protect and restore the integrity of 

waters of the State. Ambient monitoring is 

independent of regulatory water quality programs 

and serves as a measure of the overall quality of 

water resources and the overall effectiveness of 

the Regional Board’s prevention, regulatory, and 

remedial actions. 

The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program 

(SWAMP) is designed as an ongoing program to 
June 8, 2011 V-4

assess the effectiveness of State and Regional 

Board regulatory water quality programs, to 

develop a statewide picture of the status and 

trends in surface water quality, and to develop 

site-specific information in areas that are known 

or suspected to have water quality problems. In 

particular, SWAMP is intended to meet four 

goals:

1. Identify specific problems preventing the 

State Board, the Regional Board, and the 

public from realizing beneficial uses in 

targeted watersheds. 

2. Create an ambient monitoring program that 

addresses all hydrologic units of the state 

using consistent and objective monitoring, 

sampling and analysis methods; consistent 

data quality and assurance protocols; and 

centralized data management.

3. Document ambient water quality conditions 

in potentially clean and polluted areas.

4. Provide data to evaluate the effectiveness of 

water quality regulatory programs in 

protecting beneficial uses of waters of the 

State. 

In achieving these goals, each of the State and 

Regional Board monitoring programs (e.g., State 

Mussel Watch, Toxic Substances Monitoring) are

incorporated into SWAMP to ensure a 

coordinated approach without duplication. Fiscal 

Year (FY) 00-01 marked the first year of 

implementation of the SWAMP Program. The 

Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program 

(CCAMP), which has been underway since 1997, 

represents the Central Coast Region’s 

participation in the statewide SWAMP Program. 

More detailed information on the SWAMP 

program can be found at the State Board website

(http://www.swrcb.ca.gov). A summary of the 

CCAMP program is contained in this chapter.

V.A.2. TOXIC SUBSTANCE 

MONITORING PROGRAM

The Toxic Substance Monitoring (TSM) Program

was initiated in 1976 by the State Board to 

provide a uniform statewide approach to the 

detection and evaluation of toxic substances in 

organisms found in fresh, estuarine, and marine 

waters of the State. The TSM program uses 

resident fish and other aquatic organisms 

(primarily crayfish) to monitor pollutant levels 

through tissue analysis. Results of tissue 

analyses reflect exposure to contaminants over 

extended periods of time and therefore provide a 

field-based estimate for long-term exposure of 

people, fish, and other wildlife to pollutants in the 

food chain. This approach also allows for 

capture of potentially toxic discharges that occur 

on an intermittent basis that might otherwise be 

missed with “grab” sampling of water.

The primary objectives of the TSM program are:

1. To develop statewide baseline data and to 

demonstrate trends in the occurrence of toxic 

elements and organic substances in aquatic 

biota.

2. To assess impacts of accumulated toxicants 

upon the usability of State waters by man.

3. To assess impacts of accumulated toxicants 

upon aquatic biota.

4. Where problem concentrations of toxicants 

are detected, to attempt to identify sources of 

toxicants and to relate concentrations found 

in the biota to concentrations found in the 

water.

TSM reports have been published periodically

since 1977. Tissue samples are analyzed for 

metals, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc and mercury. In 

addition, both invertebrate and fish tissue 

samples are analyzed for synthetic organic 

compounds, most of which are pesticides (Table 

6-1). Both TSM and State Mussel Watch (SMW) 

Program publications and data can be found at 

the State Board website

(http://www.swrcb.ca.gov).

V.A.3. STATE MUSSEL WATCH

PROGRAM

The State Mussel Watch (SMW) program is a 

long-term marine water-quality monitoring 

program initiated in 1977. The SMW program 

uses resident and transplanted bivalves (e.g.,

mussels and clams) to monitor pollutant levels at 

coastal reference stations and selected sites in 

bays and estuaries to identify or confirm potential 

toxic substance pollution. 
June 8, 2011 V-5

Table 6-1. Synthetic Organic Compounds Analyzed in the Toxic Substances Monitoring and State Mussel 

Watch Programs

COMPOUND COMPOUND COMPOUND

Aldrin DDMU pp Nitrofen (TOK)

Benefin DDT pp Oxychlordance

BHC Dialifor Parathion, ethyl

BHC Diazinon Parathion, methyl

BHC (lindane) Dichlofenthion PCB 1248

BHC Dicofol (Kelthane) PCB 1254

Carbophenothion Dieldrin PCB 1260

CDEC (Vegedex) Endosulfan I (Thiodan I) PCNB (Quintozene)

Chlorbenside Endrin Perthane

cis-Chlordane EPN Phenkapton

trans-Chlordane Ehtion Phorate (Thimet)

Chloroneb Fenitrothion Ronnel

Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) Fonofos (Dyfonate) Strobane

Dacthal Heptachlor Tetradifon (Tedion)

DDE op Heptachlor epoxide Toxaphene

DDE pp Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) 2,4-D isopropyl ester

DDD op Methoxychlor pp ' 2,4-D isobutyl ester

DDMS pp Mirex 2,4-D n-butyl ester
June 8, 2011 V-6

Mussels are used as sentinel organisms for trace 

metals and synthetic organic compounds in coastal 

and estuarine waters. Although the mussel 

populations of bays and estuaries are of a different 

species than those found in the open coast, their 

suitability as sentinels for monitoring the presence of 

toxic pollutants stems from several factors including: 

(1) their ubiquity along the California coast; (2) their 

ability to concentrate pollutants above ambient sea 

water levels and to provide a time-averaged sample; 

and (3) their non-motile nature which permits a 

localized measurement of water quality. 

The primary goals of the SMW program are as 

follows:

1. To provide long-term monitoring of selected 

toxic substances in coastal waters;

2. To provide an important element in a 

comprehensive water quality monitoring 

strategy;

3. To identify on a year-to-year basis specific areas 

where concentrations of toxic materials are 

higher than naturally occurring background 

levels.

Tissue samples are analyzed for trace metals 

including aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver and zincand 

for synthetic organic compounds listed in Table 6-1. 

During the 1977 and 1978 sampling periods, the 

focus of the SMW program was, for the most part, on 

open coast monitoring of sites outside the vicinity of 

known pollutant point sources. Monitoring water 

quality in the State Board's designated Water Quality 

Protection Areas (formerly known as Areas of Special 

Biological Significance), to establish baseline 

conditions relating to the range of typical conditions in 

water, sediment and biota, was given prime 

importance in the early years of the program.

Based on identification of "hot spot" areas during 

1977 and 1978, intensive sampling of these areas 

was implemented in 1979. Such a sampling strategy 

was intended to confirm previous findings, establish 

the magnitude of the potential problem and identify 

pollutant sources. The program has since evolved to 

include transplanting mussels into selected California 

bays and estuaries at specific sites to confirm 

potential toxic substance pollution,e.g., in the vicinity 

of discharges. In some cases the SMW program 

deploys freshwater clams or other organisms into

fresh water streams and rivers to provide information

about toxic substance pollution in watershed systems.

As with the TSM, statewide SMW reports are 

published periodically, available at the State Board

website (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov).

V.A.4. GROUNDWATER AMBIENT 

MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

The State Board, pursuant to provisions of the 1999 

Budget Act, has developed a statewide Groundwater 

Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) 

Program, which includes the collaborative efforts of 

other state and federal agencies also charged with 

groundwater monitoring responsibilities. The goal of 

GAMA is to provide information on the quality of 

California’s groundwater and assess relative 

susceptibility of groundwater resources in California, 

especially those used as a drinking water supply. 

The GAMA program has two primary components: 

the California Aquifer Susceptibility (CAS) 

Assessment, which addresses public drinking water 

wells, and the Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment 

Project which addresses private domestic drinking 

water wells.

V.A.4.a. CALIFORNIA AQUIFER 

SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT

The State Board, in coordination with the DHS, DWR, 

and local water districts and purveyors, is 

implementing the California Aquifer Susceptibility 

(CAS) Assessment to determine water quality and 

relative susceptibility of groundwater that serves as a 

source for public water supplies to possible 

contaminants. CAS employs a groundwater age 

dating technique (tritium-helium analysis) and lowlevel detection (microgram/liter range) of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) to assess aquifer 

susceptibility. A fundamental premise of the CAS 

assessment is that groundwater age can be used as 

a guide for assessing aquifer susceptibility, i.e., 

young groundwater age implies relatively rapid 

recharge of surface water to the aquifer, and 

therefore potentially rapid migration of surface 

contaminants to the aquifer. Low-level VOC 

detection is used to corroborate age-dating data and 

to also identify public supply wells that are already 

impacted by contaminants, but are still below action 

levels. This provides an “early warning system” for 

potentially significant VOC contamination. 

In coordination with the USGS and Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the CAS 
June 8, 2011 V-7

assessment is designed to sample the approximately 

16,000 public supply wells statewide, beginning with 

more urbanized areas. Sampling began in 

September 2000 and will continue for the next several 

years over the entire state, depending on the 

availability of funding. General constituents sampled 

by the USGS and LLNL for low-level VOC analysis 

are available at the State Board website 

(http://www.swrcb.ca.gov). Additional constituents 

may be chosen based upon specific site or land-use 

conditions.

Groundwater quality, age-dating, and hydrogeologic 

data collected as part of the CAS assessment are 

managed utilizing the Geographical and 

Environmental Information Management System 

(GEIMS)/GeoTracker system, an internet-accessible 

geographic information system (GIS) that provides 

access to water quality data. GeoTracker can be 

found at http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.

V.A.4.b. VOLUNTARY DOMESTIC WELL 

ASSESSMENT

The Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Program

consists of sampling domestic wells for various 

constituents that may be found in domestic well 

water, including nitrates, total and fecal coliform 

bacteria, Methyl tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and various 

minerals. This information is provided to domestic 

well owners and groundwater agencies. The 

Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Program

focuses on specific areas, as resources permit and 

are chosen based upon existing knowledge of water 

quality and land use, in coordination with local 

environmental agencies. The State Board incurs the 

costs of sampling and analysis. 

V.A.5. GROUNDWATER QUALITY 

MONITORING ACT OF 2001

Assembly Bill 599 (AB 599), effective January 1, 

2002, established the Groundwater Quality 

Monitoring Act of 2001 (sections 10780-10782.3 of 

the California Water Code). The Act requires the 

State Board to integrate existing monitoring programs 

with new program elements, as necessary, for the 

purpose of establishing a comprehensive 

groundwater monitoring program capable of 

assessing each groundwater basin in the state, either 

through direct or other statistically reliable sampling 

approaches. A second fundamental component of 

this Act is to increase the availability of water quality 

data and information to the public. 

AB 599 requires the State Board to create an 

Interagency Task Force (ITF) to identify actions 

necessary to establish a groundwater-quality 

monitoring program, and to identify measures that 

would increase coordination among agencies that 

collect groundwater quality information. In addition, 

the State Board is also to convene a Public Advisory 

Committee (PAC) to the ITF. The AB 599 PAC is to 

consist of representatives from federal agencies, 

public water systems, environmental organizations, 

local water agencies, agriculture, groundwater 

management entities, and the business community. 

In coordination with the ITF and the PAC, the State 

Board must submit to the Governor and the 

Legislature, on or before March 1, 2003, a report that 

includes a description of a comprehensive 

groundwater-quality monitoring program for the State. 

V.B. REGIONAL MONITORING 

PROGRAMS

V.B.1 CENTRAL COAST AMBIENT 

MONITORING PROGRAM

In 1998, the Central Coast Ambient Monitoring 

Program (CCAMP) was formally established by the 

Regional Board to provide integrated and systematic 

information on surface water quality in the Region, in 

order to evaluate the effectiveness of Regional Board 

efforts to meet Basin Plan water quality objectives 

and protect beneficial uses. CCAMP’s general 

program objectives are to:

1) Acquire and evaluate existing monitoring data 

and other information, from agencies, volunteer 

programs, and other sources.

2) Collect ambient monitoring data for the Region's 

watersheds, coastal confluences, and nearshore 

areas.

3) Conduct periodic detailed assessments of the 

Region's watersheds, groundwater basins, 

coastal confluences, and nearshore areas.

4) Utilize monitoring data and other information to 

maintain and update the Region's Water Quality 

Assessments and list of impaired waterbodies 

and beneficial uses.

5) Provide information presentations through the 

use of geographic information systems 
June 8, 2011 V-8

technology and other forms of graphic 

visualization.

6) Provide data and information dissemination 

services through the Internet.

7) Conduct periodic assessments of other programs’ 

activities to eliminate gaps, overlaps, and 

duplications of effort, and utilize external 

information whenever possible as a component of 

the Ambient Monitoring Program.

8) Work with other monitoring programs, including 

volunteer programs, to develop consistent 

monitoring protocols and methods, quality control 

standards, data management procedures, and to 

encourage efforts consistent with regionwide 

monitoring goals.

9) Coordinate data management activities with other 

programs to maximize accessibility and usability 

of data.

The CCAMP monitoring strategy calls for dividing the 

Region into five watershed rotation areas and 

conducting synoptic, tributary-based sampling each 

year in one of the areas. Over a five-year period, 

each of the major Hydrologic Units in the Region are 

monitored and evaluated. In addition to the tributarybased site selection approach, additional monitoring 

sites are established in each rotation area to provide 

focused attention on watersheds and waterbodies 

known to have water quality impairments or other 

issues of interest.

The CCAMP strategy for establishing and maintaining 

permanent long-term monitoring sites provides a 

framework for trend analysis and detection of 

emergent water quality problems. CCAMP uses a 

variety of monitoring approaches to characterize 

water quality conditions and trends in coastal 

watersheds, including:

Rapid bioassessment using benthic 

invertebrates

Conventional water quality analysis

Analysis of tissue, water, and sediment for 

organic chemicals and metals

Toxicity evaluations

Habitat assessments

To develop a broad picture of the overall health of 

waters in the Region, a similar baseline monitoring 

study design is applied in each rotation area. This 

provides for compatibility across the Region and 

allows for prioritization of problems across a relatively 

large spatial scale. The CCAMP strategy also allows 

for incorporation of watershed-specific knowledge so 

that questions which are narrower in focus can be 

addressed. For example, in watersheds where TMDL 

assessments are being conducted, additional 

information is collected as necessary to support 

development of the analysis. Special studies are 

undertaken as funding and staffing permits to further 

focus monitoring on questions of interest specific to 

individual watersheds. 

Coastal Confluences monitoring is another CCAMP 

program component that focuses on monitoring 

“integrator sites” at the lower ends of rivers and 

creeks at their outflow to the ocean. Sampling at 

these sites is conducted continuously, rather than in a 

five-year rotation. These sites aid in long-term trend 

detection, regional priority setting, and understanding 

inputs to the nearshore environment.

CCAMP nearshore monitoring activities are varied. In 

the Monterey Bay area, CCAMP has worked with 

ocean dischargers to redesign and combine receiving 

water monitoring programs to form the Central Coast 

Long-term Environmental Assessment Network 

(CCLEAN). This program characterizes loading of 

organic pollutants, nutrients and pathogen indicators 

from discharges and river mouths to the ocean. It 

also documents associated nearshore conditions, 

including chemical concentrations in mussel tissue, 

and nearshore nutrient and toxic phytoplankton 

concentrations. The CCAMP program directs funding 

and other support to other marine monitoring 

activities, including sand crab, mussel, and sea otter 

tissue analysis for organic chemicals, polynuclear 

aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, toxic phytoplankton 

and specific pathogens. CCAMP staff are also 

working with the local research community to expand 

the network of instrumented moorings in nearshore 

areas, with particular focus on nitrate, chlorophyll, 

and toxic phytoplankton.

More information on the CCAMP program can be 

found at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/. The 

CCAMP program is conducted in coordination with 

the TSM and SMW monitoring programs, and 

satisfies Regional Board requirements for 

participation in the statewide SWAMP program.

V.C. ASSESSMENTS

V.C.1. STATE WATER QUALITY 

INVENTORY (305(b)) REPORT

Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean 

Water Act (PL 92-500), the State Board is required to 

submit a report on the status of the State’s water 

quality to the USEPA at least every two years. The 

CWA establishes a process for States to use to 
June 8, 2011 V-9

develop information on the quality of their water 

resources (see USEPA 305(b) reporting guidelines). 

Specific requirements for this process are also found 

in Sections 106(e), 204(a), 303(d), and 314(a) of the 

CWA. Section 305(b) of the CWA specifies that 

each state must develop a program to monitor the 

quality of its surface waters and prepare a report 

describing the status of its water quality; Section 

106(e) requests, but does not require, that each state 

also include the status of ground waters of the state 

in the report. 

The 305(b) process is the principal means by which 

the USEPA, Congress, and the public evaluate: 1) 

whether U.S. waters meet water quality standards; 2) 

progress made in maintaining and restoring water 

quality; and 3) the extent of remaining problems. 

Water quality assessment information from 

California’s nine Regional Boards is compiled and 

presented in conformance with USEPAs 305(b) 

reporting guidelines through tabulation of the general 

water quality of waters of the State during the 

preceding years, including a summary of current 

designated use support, individual beneficial use 

support, major causes and sources impacting 

designated beneficial uses, and associated public 

health concerns. The Report also contains a brief 

description of water pollution control policies and 

programs designed to manage water quality. 

Assessment information used for compiling and 

reporting the 305(b) report is contained in the State’s 

Geospatial Waterbody System (GeoWBS) database, 

structured for the purpose of producing the 305(b) 

Report.

V.C.2. STATE WATER QUALITY 

ASSESSMENT REPORT

The Water Quality Assessment (WQA) report is a 

biennial compilation of water quality information 

similar to the biennial Water Quality Inventory 

(305(b)) report; however, the WQA report contains 

specific information for individual water bodies of the 

region rather than generalized summaries for waterbody types of the region. Specifically, the WQA 

categorizes the water quality of each water body by 

reporting the degree to which beneficial uses are 

supported (see Basin Plan Chapter 2 for beneficial 

uses). The levels of beneficial use support are 

described as: fully supporting, fully supporting but 

threatened, partially supporting, not supporting, and 

not assessed. In addition to a description of the level 

of beneficial use support for each water body, the 

WQA contains narrative assessment (comments) for 

selected water bodies of the Region and identifies

water bodies included on the Federal 303(d) “list” 

(numbers refer to sections of the Clean Water Act). 

The 303(d) list is a list of impaired waters where 

objectives or goals of the Clean Water Act are not 

attainable through standard regulatory controls. 

States are required to prioritize these water bodies for 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development.

As with the 305(b) report, the information used by 

Regional Board staff in compiling and revising the 

WQA includes the type of monitoring data discussed 

in this chapter, records of past Regional Board 

enforcement actions, professional judgment of

Regional Board scientists and engineers, and public 

comment. WQA information is stored in the GeoWBS 

database system,

V.C.3. CLEAN WATER ACT 

SECTION 303(d) LIST OF IMPAIRED 

WATERS

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act 

requires states to identify waterbodies that do not 

meet water quality objectives and are not supporting 

their beneficial uses. Each state must submit an 

updated list, called the 303(d) list, to the USEPA 

every two years. In addition to identifying the 

waterbodies that are not supporting beneficial uses, 

the list also identifies the pollutant or stressor causing 

impairment, and establishes a schedule for 

developing a control plan to address the impairment.

To develop the list of impaired waters, Regional 

Board staff relies on data and information collected in

the Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program and 

other State monitoring programs, along with data and 

information available from local government or citizen 

organizations. Staff consider the quality, quantity, 

timing, and location of data and information for each 

specified waterbody and the pollutant or stressor 

potentially causing impairment in that waterbody. 

Typically, staff compares the levels of the pollutant or 

stressor to established legal water quality limits (e.g., 

water quality objectives or other criteria indicating 

acceptable water quality conditions).

If a waterbody is found to be impaired for a particular 

pollutant or stressor, it is placed on the list. Once a 

waterbody and associated stressor pollutant are

placed on the list, specific and focused monitoring 

and assessment efforts are conducted to more fully 

characterize the nature of the impairment, including 

identification of the pollutant source(s), and to 

develop solutions to address the impairment.
June 8, 2011 V-10

V.C.4. CENTRAL COAST AMBIENT 

MONITORING PROGRAM 

ASSESSMENTS

Water quality data collected in the CCAMP program 

is compiled and analyzed to produce watershed 

assessment reports for the Region. Reports are 

generated for both surface waters and groundwaters 

in each watershed, following the CCAMP 5-year 

rotation monitoring schedule discussed above. 

V.C.4.a. Surface water assessments

Surface water assessments are developed using data 

collected through the CCAMP program and other 

available information sources, including water quality 

data from the California Department of Health 

Services (DHS), United States Geological Survey 

(USGS), Department of Fish and Game (DFG), 

Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Toxic 

Substance Monitoring (TSM) program, National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

discharge data, county data, city data, relevant water 

quality reports, and any other available literature. 

Water quality data is also combined with 

hydrogeomorphic data, land use data, etc., to develop 

watershed scale assessments, which are, in turn, 

used to update the 305(b) report and support TMDL 

development.

V.C.4.b. Groundwater assessments

CCAMP does not actively collect groundwater data, 

but uses existing sources of data and other available 

water quality information to develop assessments of 

groundwater conditions. Data and other information 

are compiled from the DHS, USGS, California 

Department of Water Resources (DWR), DPR, and 

city or county information sources.

Data for both surface and groundwater assessments 

are evaluated for pollutants of concern, water quality 

standards exceedances, pollutant levels that warrant 

attention, beneficial use impairment, spatial and 

temporal trends, data gaps, and other pertinent 

information. General evaluations of relationships 

between surface water and groundwater pollutants 

are also included in the assessments. Assessment 

information is then used to develop recommendations 

for action, to assess future research and monitoring 

needs, to update the 305(b) report and support TMDL 

development, and to support permit review activities.

Watershed assessment reports and associated water 

quality data are available at the CCAMP website (see 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ and click on 

CCAMP). 

V.D. OTHER MONITORING 

AND ASSESSMENT 

ACTIVITIES

Nonpoint source investigations are conducted to (a) 

identify the location and nature of sources of nonpoint 

pollutants; (b) develop information on the quantity, 

strength, character, and variability of nonpoint source 

pollutants; (c) evaluate impacts on receiving water 

quality and biota; (d) provide information useful in 

management of nonpoint source pollution; and (e) 

monitor results of any control plan. Investigations are 

typically undertaken through local agency and 

watershed group efforts, funded by Federal Clean 

Water Act grants and other sources.

Special studies and intensive monitoring surveys are 

conducted to obtain detailed information about a 

specific water quality problem which, in turn, can be 

used to evaluate violations of receiving water 

standards.These studies usually involve localized, 

intermittent sampling at a higher than normal 

frequency. These surveys are specially designed to 

evaluate problems in impaired waterbodies, Water 

Quality Protection Areas (formerly known as Areas of 

Special Biological Significance), or hydrologic units 

requiring sampling in addition to routine monitoring 

programs. Results from these special studies may be 

used for addressing impairments identified on the 

303(d) List, including Total Maximum Daily Load 

development, Water Quality Assessment and 305(b) 

Report updates, and other waterbody assessment 

activities.
Office of Public Affairs: (916) 341-5254

Office of Legislative Affairs: (916) 341-5251

Office of the Ombudsman (916) 341-5254

Water Quality information: (916) 341-5455

Water Rights information: (916) 341-5300

Financial Assistance information: (916) 341-5700

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS

P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812-0100

www.waterboards.ca.gov

NORTH COAST REGION (1)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast

5550 Skylane Blvd., Suite A

Santa Rosa, CA 95403

E-mail: info1@waterboards.ca.gov

(707) 576-2220 TEL • (707) 523-0135 FAX

SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION (2)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay

1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400

Oakland, CA 94612

E-mail: info2@waterboards.ca.gov

(510) 622-2300 TEL • (510) 622-2460 FAX

CENTRAL COAST REGION (3)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast

895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

E-mail: info3@waterboards.ca.gov

(805) 549-3147 TEL • (805) 543-0397 FAX

LOS ANGELES REGION (4)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles

320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90013

E-mail: info4@waterboards.ca.gov

(213) 576-6600 TEL • (213) 576-6640 FAX

CENTRAL VALLEY REGION (5)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley

11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

E-mail: info5@waterboards.ca.gov

(916) 464-3291 TEL • (916) 464-4645 FAX

Fresno branch office

1685 E Street, Suite 200

Fresno, CA 93706

(559) 445-5116 TEL • (559) 445-5910 FAX

Redding branch office

415 Knollcrest Drive

Redding, CA 96002

(530) 224-4845 TEL • (530) 224-4857 FAX

LAHONTAN REGION (6)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan

2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

E-mail: info6@waterboards.ca.gov

(530) 542-5400 TEL • (530) 544-2271 FAX

Victorville branch office

14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200

Victorville, CA 92392

(760) 241-6583 TEL • (760) 241-7308 FAX

COLORADO RIVER BASIN REGION (7)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver

73-720 Fred Waring Dr., Suite 100

Palm Desert, CA 92260

E-mail: info7@waterboards.ca.gov

(760) 346-7491 TEL • (760) 341-6820 FAX

SANTA ANA REGION (8)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana

3737 Main Street, Suite 500

Riverside, CA 92501-3339

E-mail: info8@waterboards.ca.gov

(951) 782-4130 TEL • (951) 781-6288 FAX

SAN DIEGO REGION (9)

www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego

9174 Sky Park Court, Suite 100

San Diego, CA 92123

E-mail: info9@waterboards.ca.gov

(858) 467-2952 TEL • (858) 571-6972 FAX

State of California

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

California Environmental Protection Agency

Linda S. Adams, Acting Secretary

State Water Resources Control Board

Charles R. Hoppin, Chair

Updated 1/19/2011

State Water Resources Control Board (Headquarters)

1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814