# 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

E dmund 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 Me mber

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 Contro l 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 QUALIT Y 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. GENE RAL 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 INSTAL LATIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 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. C OASTAL ZONE ACT REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS

................................ .................... IV

- 45

VIII.B. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT

................................ ................................ ............................... IV

- 46

VIII.C. AGRICULTURAL WATER AND WAST EWATER MANAGEMENT

................................ .............. IV

- 48

VIII.D. INDIVIDUAL, ALTERNATIVE, AND COMMUNITY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

................................ . IV

- 57

VIII.E. LAND DISTURBANCE ACT IVITIES

................................ ................................ .............................. IV

- 68

### ii

IX. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... IV

- 76

IX. A. MORRO BAY TOTAL MAXI MUM DAILY LOAD FOR S EDIMENT (INCLUDING C HORRO

CREEK, LOS OSOS CREE K AND THE MORRO BAY ESTUARY)

................................ ......... IV

- 76

IX. B. SAN LORENZO RIVER TO TAL MAXIMUM DAILY LO AD FOR SEDIMENT (INC LUDING

CARBONERA CREEK, LOM PICO CREEK, AND SHIN GLE MILL CREEK)

............................ IV

- 82

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

AND LOS OSOS CREEKS

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... IV

- 90

IX. G. TOTAL MAXIMUM D AILY LOAD FOR PATHOG ENS FOR SAN LUIS OBI SPO CREEK

............ IV

- 96

IX. G. SAN LUIS OBISPO CREE K TOTAL MAXIMUM DAIL Y LOAD AND IMPLEMENT ATION

PLAN FOR NITRATE

- NITROGEN

................................ ................................ .......................... IV

- 101

IX. H. PAJARO RIVER TOTAL M AXIMUM DAILY LOADS F OR SEDIMENT INCLUDIN G LLAGAS

CREEK, RIDER CREEK, AND SAN BENITO RIVER

................................ ............................. IV

- 104

IX. I. TOTAL MAXIMUM D AILY LOADS FOR PATHO GENS 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, CARBON ERA

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 COLI FORM IN PAJARO RIVER

WATERSHED WATERS (IN CLUDING PAJARO RIVER , SAN BENITO RIVER, LLAGAS

CREEK, TEQUISQUITA S LOUGH, SAN JUAN CREE K, CARNADERO/UVAS CR EEK,

BIRD CREEK, PESCADER O CREEK, TRES PINOS CREEK, FURLONG (JONE S)

CREEK, SANTA ANA CRE EK, AND PACHEC O 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 PL AN

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 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 POLIC Y

................................ ................................ .......... 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 WATE R RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTROL ACTIONS

............. V

- 4

III. REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES

............................ V

- 5

III.A. GENER AL

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 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, ALTERNATI VE, 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 C ONFINEMENT 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

V I.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. IN TERPRETATION OF MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR ON

- SITE

SEWAGE SYSTEMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. V

- 18

VI.K. APPRECIATION FOR DISCHARGER COMPLIANCE

................................ ................................ .... V

- 18

CHAPTER 6. MONITOR ING 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 MO NITORING

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 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 (Anti

degradation Policy), State Board Resolution No. 68

- 16

A

- 3 Water Quality Control Pl an 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 Cooli ng 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, St ate 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 Faciliti es 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 Reques ting 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 Res idues

### 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 Complian ce, 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 Comm unity 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 an d 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 Wat ers

................................ ................................ ............................. 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

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... II I

- 13

Table 3

- 8. Median Ground Water Objectives

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... III

- 16

Table 4

- 1. Big Basin Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Discharger s

................................ ........................ IV

- 13

Table 4

- 2. Pajaro River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers

................................ ................... IV

- 15

Table 4

- 3. Carmel River Hydrologic Un it Summarized Municipal Dischargers

................................ .................. IV

- 17

Table 4

- 4. Salinas River Hydrologic Unit Summarized Municipal Dischargers

................................ .................. IV

- 17

Tab le 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 Ba sin 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 dete rmining 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 recognize s 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 ach ieve 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 business es 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 i mplemented 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 ide ntified. 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 C ontrol 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 Wa ter

Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The Porter

Cologne 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

"...formula te 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

tho se 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 delegat ion 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 simpl e

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, t he 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, San ta 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 be low: CENTRAL COAST REGION 1



### 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 wh ich 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 dif ferent

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 wate rs 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 resource s; 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 Kan garoo 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 ha s 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

veg etable 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 experience d 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 t he 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

- versus

population 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

Total 1 

### 792,000 1,220,700

1 Table does not include relatively small populations of portions

of Ve ntura, 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 im plemented 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 wil l 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 w ater 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 Sub

basin, and the Cuyama Ri ver in the Santa Maria Sub

basin. 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 four

year 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 whi ch 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 t hese 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 reco mmendations 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

Inf orming 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 w ater 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 Regio nal

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

suc cessor to the federal Water Pollution Control

Administration), the so

- called 1967 Stan dards 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

th e 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

inc orporated 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 dome stic water supplies.

Chemical objectives for the San Lorenzo River Sub

basin 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 w ere based largely on

existing water quality.

After adoption of the 1975 Basin Plan, some thirty

eight 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 revie wed 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

investigat e 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 P lan 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 heari ngs 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

dur ation). 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

T able 1

- 1 . 1988 Trien nial 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)

Contrac t $ = 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 (migratio n 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 Cle an 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 y ear

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 pl an

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 c riteria 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 obj ective 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 disch arge 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 oi l 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 mo nths

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 an d 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 V alley

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 Cany on 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, 2 011 II

- 1 

# CHAPTER 2. PRESENT AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL

USES

S tate 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 oc cur

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 cu rrent

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 present ed 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 re garded 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 us es 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 wat er 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 indiv idual 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 domesti c 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/Es tuary 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 C reek 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 Estu ary 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 Cre ek 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 Cree k 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 Mi ll 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 Lak e 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

Corralit os 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 Cre ek (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 C reek 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 C reek 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 Gulc h 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

SA LINAS 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 Po nd #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

Vaque ros 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, n orth 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 Marc os 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

Pic o 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 Estua ry 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 Res ervoir 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 Cree k 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

P refumo 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

Orcut t 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 Yne z 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 Cr eek 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 Can yon 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 A gua 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

Te colote 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 Cr eek 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 Can yon 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

T able 2

- 2 . Existing and Anticipated Uses of Coastal Waters a

_____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________

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 Slough b 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 Bla ncas 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 Regio n. 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 N ational

E stuary 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 (n orth of

the Pacific Gas and Electric Cooling Water Intake). Presently, no shellfish ing 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

T able 2

- 3

. Central Coastal Ground Water Basins a

___________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

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) Monter ey

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

Cuy ama 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 Obisp o

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, Sant a 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 Obisp o

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 Ob ispo

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

San ta 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 Ba sin 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, m ining 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, sto ck 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 Su pply (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 Wat er 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

su rface 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 transportat ion 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 enou gh 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 Califo rnia 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

pos sible. 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 activ ities 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 an d 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 wil dlife, 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.

Inla nd 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., e stuarine

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 wate r 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,

preservati on 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 enh ancement 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

designa ted 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 E ndangered 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 Aqua tic 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 quali ty

aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early

development of fish.

Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)

- Uses of water that

support habitats suitable for the collection of filter

feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels)

for human consumpti on, 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 Boa rd 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 temperatu re 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 occ urring 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,

Reg ional 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 C alifornia 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 nuisanc e.

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 es tablished

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

p eriod 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 natio nal

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 crit eria 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 dis tinction 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,

previousl y 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 defi ned 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 agri cultural 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, mi ning, 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 QUAL ITY

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, includi ng 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 ca use 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 re sulting 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

Regio nal 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 Re gulations, 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 w ater 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 W aters 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 we b 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 nu isance, 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

W aters 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 n uisance 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

a ffect 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 cha nges 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 Un its (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 dilu tion 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 Oxy gen

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.

Te mperature

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

the reto. 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

adve rsely 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 ob jective 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 consis tent 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, efflue nt 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 i s 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 adversel y 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 Reg ulations

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 or ganic

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 ch emical

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 s hall 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 amount s 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 cur rently 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 b e 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

__________________________________________________________________________________________ Ma ximum

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

- Dic hloroethane 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

Glypho sate 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

Trichl oroethylene 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 isome r 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

Selen ium 0.01

Silver 0.05

*Annual Average of Maximum Daily Air Temperature, o F 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 Wate r for Irrigation a

Water Quality Guidelines

Problem and Related Constituent No Problem Increasing Problems Severe

Salinity b

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

SA R, adjusted c <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 tox icity from foliar absorption e (sprinklers)

Sodium

me/l <3.0 >3.0

--

mg/l <69 >69

--

Chloride

me/l <3.0 >3.0

--

mg/l <106 >106

--

Miscellaneous f

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 m od ified 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 fo r 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 incl ude added effects of

precipitation and dissolution of calcium in soils and related to CO 3 + HCO 3 concentrations.

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

- pHc)].

Refer to Appendix for calculation ass istance.

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

desired) can be calculated as follows:

Note : Na and Ca + Mg should be in me/l. GR will be i n 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 sen sitive

(use salinity tolerance tables). For boron sensitivity, re fer 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/h igh 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 NO 3 - N = 2.72 lbs. N/acre foot of applied water.) HCO 3 with overhead sprinkler irrigation may cause a white carbonate deposit to form on

fruit and leaves.

### June 8, 2011 III

- 9

Table 3

- 4

. Water Quality Objectives for Agricultural Water Use

________________________________________________________________________________________

Maximum Concentration (mg/l) a



### ELEMENT Irrigation Livestock

supply b 

### 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 0.1 c



### Lithium 2.5 d



### -- Manganese 0.2

-- Mercury

-- 0.01

Molyb denum 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 Agri culture

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 tu ngsten.

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 fo r 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 exc eed 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 shal l 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

consti tuents 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 temperatu re.

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 ha rd 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/l a,b



### Freshwater (COLD, WARM)

METAL HARD

(> 100 mg/l CaCO3) SOFT

(< 100 mg/l CaCO3)

Cadmium c 

### .03 .004

Chromium .05 .05

Copper .03 .01

Lead .03 .03

Mercury d 

### .0002 .0002

Nickel e 

### .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 nic kel 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 sh all 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/l a



### __________________________________________

METAL MARINE (MAR)

__________________________________________

Cadmium .0002

Chromium .05

Copper .01

Lead .01

Mercury c 

### .0001

Ni ckel d 

### .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 qua lifying 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 p eriod 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 object ives 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 potential ly

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/l a



### ___________________________________________________ _______________________________________

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

Lomp oc 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

Ar royo 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 Anton io 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 Obj ectives 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. GEN ERAL 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 t he 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 R egulations, 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

effe ct 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 medi an 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

S alinas 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 synchronous ly 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 exi sting 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/l a

Sub

- basin/Sub

- Area TDS Cl SO 4 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 Plain f 1250 250 500 0.5 250 2

Lompoc Upland f 600 150 100 0.5 100 2

Lompoc Terrace f 750 210 100 0.3 130 1

San Antonio Creek 600 150 150 0.2 100 5

Santa Maria c

Upper Guadalupe f 1000 d 165 500 d 0.5 230 1.4 e

Lower Guadalupe f 1000 d 85 500 d 0.2 90 2.0 e

Lower Nipomo Mesa f 710 95 250 0.15 90 5.7 e

Orcutt f 740 65 300 0.1 65 2.3 e

Santa Maria f 1000 d 90 510 0.2 105 8.0 e

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

Arro yo Grande 800 100 200 0.2 50 10

Salinas River

Upper Valley f 600 150 150 0.5 70 5

Upper Forebay f 800 100 250 0.5 100 5

Lower Forebay f 1500 250 850 0.5 150 8

180 foot Aquifer f 1500 250 600 0.5 250 1

400 foot Aquifer f 400 50 100 0.2 50 1

Paso Robles g

Central Basin f 400 60 45 0.3 80 3.4

San Miguel f 750 100 175 0.5 105 4.5

Paso Robles f 1050 270 200 2.0 225 2.3

Templeton f 730 100 120 0.3 75 2.7

Atascadero f 550 70 85 0.3 65 2.3

Estrella f 925 130 240 0.75 170 3.2

Shandon 1390 430 1025 h 2.8 730 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 po int 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 198 5" and

February 1986, Staff Report.

d These are maximum objectives in accordance with Titl e 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 Bes t 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 quali ty

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 objectiv es 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 a ction 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 d escribed 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

N onpoint 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 foll owing 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 Exe mptions

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 Reauthoriz ation

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 th at 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 goa ls 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

f resh 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

proces ses 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 imp aired 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 potentia l

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

no npoint 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

R esources 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

plan s 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 an d 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

summar y 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 b eneficial 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, N ational 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

CERT IFICATION

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 f rom 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

stre ams, 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

con tained 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 Region al 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 syst ems 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 separ ate 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 an d 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 self

monitoring reports submitted by the discharger,

perform independent compliance checking, and take

necessary enforcement action. The California Porter

Cologne 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. WAIVER S

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 perm its.



# V.A.5. PROHIBITIONS AND

PROHIBITION EXEMPTIONS

The Regional Board can prohibit specific types of

discharges to certain areas (California Porter

Cologne Water Quality Control Act Section 13243).

These discharge prohibitions may be revised,

rescin ded, 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 refer ring 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 (Californi a 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 Regiona l Board is reasonably

confident that the problem will be corrected.

Cleanup or Abatement Order

A Cleanup or Abatement Order (California Porter

Cologne Water Quality Control Act Section 13304) is

an order requiring a discharger to clean up a waste or

aba te 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

issu ed 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 require ments 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 l iabilities 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 th e 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

disc ussed 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 Cont rol 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 c ontrol

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 re duce 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

threatene d 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" practic es 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 prop erly. 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 groun d 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 b e 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

sour ce 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

ap propriate 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 qu ality

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.

(Oft en 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 M anagement 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 wastew ater 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 us e 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 ar e 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 anthropomor phic 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 t o 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 whic h 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 c oordination 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 Manag ement

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 t he 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 implement ation 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 Boar d 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 requirem ents 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 di scharge 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 ins pect 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 thro ughout 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 w ater 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 Coasta l 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. Usua lly, 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 m anner 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

wate r 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

En vironmental 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 rec reational 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. D etoxification 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 q uality 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 wa ters 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 Resourc es 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 deni trification, 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 t o

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

conta ins 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, so lids, 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 all ows

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 requir ed 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

monitori ng 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 lan d. 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 Regulatio ns, 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 Centr al

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 d isposal 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 v ery 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 completi ng

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 w aste 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

a nd 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 o f 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 site s 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 Sub title 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 In tegrated 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 Undergro und

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/le achate 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 select ion

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, an d

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 m ore 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

c ontrol 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 Depart ment 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 disinf ection 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 so me 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 loc ations 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 characterist ics 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 coagulat ion, 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 exampl e, 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 fi sh

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 2 2, 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 F ive

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

municipaliti es 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 pr etreatment 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 certa in 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 progr ams 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 Gilr oy/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 a nd 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., trickli ng

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 becom ing

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

discoura ged 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 dispose d 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 foll owing 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

Pro grams" 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 Resour ces 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 Cru z 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

Mun icipal 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 Cru z 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 Count y 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 t reatment, 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 Seaclif f 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 mil e

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

resolve d 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

se condary 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

mg d 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 alternat ive

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 Wat er 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 San ta 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 coagu lation. 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

D epartment 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 existi ng 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 f acilities ( 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 ab sorption 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 recomme nded 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

a re 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 an d 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 inter ceptor 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 Qual ity 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 ha ve

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, Environm ental 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 d ocumented

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 Beac h), 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 extend ed 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 p lan 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 wi ll 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 M onterey 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 M unicipal 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 ar e

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 fa cilities 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,

oxidati on, 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 use s 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 wil l 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. Cu rrently, 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

adm inistrative 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 are a'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

b e 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 mg d) 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 H ospital

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 follow ed 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 a nd 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 us ed

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 mai ntained 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 drain age 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 fo r 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 provide d 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 requirem ents 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 Watsonvill e'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 th e 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 Sani tary 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 Bio logical 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 V alley 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

High lands 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 dispos al

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

rec lamation, 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 Sa linas 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 Riv er Hydrologic

Unit.

Table 4

- 4

. Salinas River Hydrologic Unit

Summarized Municipal Dischargers

__________________________________________

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

(MRWPCA)

U.S. Army Fort Hunter Ligge tt

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.

Dischar ge 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 recl aimed

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 withi n

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 N ational 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 n itrogen 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

Ri ver 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 th e 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 pl anning 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 di sposal

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 Developmen t (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 tre ated 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 Nati onal 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 facilit y 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 t o 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

facili ties 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, an d South County Regions. Table 4

- 5

displays dischargers summarized below. Table 4

- 5

. Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit

Summarized Dischargers

_______________ ___________________________

Cambria Community Services District

San S imeon 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

- Cou ntry 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 Ser vices 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. I mplementation 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 com plex 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 C ayucos 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. Waste water 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 se condary

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 Cali fornia

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 a lso 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

t ank 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 Obisp o 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 collec tion 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 revi sed 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 incr eases.

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 re lied 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 sy stems 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 Be ach (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

p rovide 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 enl argements 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 oce an

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 facili ties 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 warn ing

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

Carri zo 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

describ ed 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

mai ntained 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 Guada lupe 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 disch arge 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. Biolog ical

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

adve rse 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

qu ality 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 Distri ct.

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

imp rove 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, incre asing 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

im plementation 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 comm unity 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, a nd 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

chl orinated 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

Van denberg 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

sta te 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

mana gement 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 A ir 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 respo nsibility 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 treatm ent 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 Distric t 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

require ments 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 dispo sal 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 Ju stice , 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 m aintained

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 necessar y 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 inve stigated 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 pon ds 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 a dversely 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 Sa nta 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 D istrict 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 ef fluent 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 Cali fornia 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 Sanit ary 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

imp lementation 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 u nincorporated 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 expa nd 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 f or 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) oce an 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 EP A. 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 per formance 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 30 7(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 pro duct 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 r efining

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 Plan s 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 conside ration 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

Mana gement 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 wa stes

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 waste s

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.

Example s 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

conditi ons 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. Nonhazardo us 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 pollu tants 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 si tes

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 respect ive

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 requi res 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 si tes 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

landfi ll 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 capa city 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

tha t 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

Impound ments) 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 (def ined

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

locatio n 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, deadli ne.

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 t han 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 pl ains 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 industr ial 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 elimin ation 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 Inten t 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 p rogram, 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, b ut 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 im plementation 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) establishe d 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 Prote ction 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 Qualit y 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 tox ic 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 dis chargers. (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

followin g:

### 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 Disch arge 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 assessm ent/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

disch arges 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 a ll 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 projec ts 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 Re gional

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. F our 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 A irport. 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

c omplex 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 mili tary, 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 protract ed 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 mil itary 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 si tes. 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 cleanu ps

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 esta blished 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 en sure 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 milit ary 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 sin cerity 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 instal lations 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 Age ncy (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 follo wing 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

cle anup 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 ca lled 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 Con trol 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 Facilit y 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 Requi rements, 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 neces sary to ensure site

specific 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 non

Superfund 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 pursuan t to the California Porter

Cologne 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 inclu des 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 In spection 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 in

depth characterization is required. The next phase of

remedial activities

- site characterizatio n 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. T he 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 a nd 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 an d 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 fi nal

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 le vels 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 individu al 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 u ntil 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

con tamination 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 tha t

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 envi ronmental 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 Im pact. 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 suffici ent 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 Defe nse 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 st aff.

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 non

Superfund sites (all other military install ations 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

subs tances, 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 Depar tment 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

Res ource 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 re

negotiated w hen 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 responsibili ties.



# 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 covere d 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 follo w

- 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 was te

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 wat ers 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 t he 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 Porter

Cologne Water Quality Control Act S ection 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

- sit e

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 Em ergency

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 toxicit y 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 PROGR AM

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

Francis co 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 Mod el 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 21,00 0 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, Regio ns 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 cle anup 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 Un derground 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 circumst ances 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 manne r 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 $990,00 0 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, Chap ter 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 State s "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 fa cilities 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 lat er;

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 Petro leum 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 (Chap ter 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 facilit ies 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 unde rlying 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 engi neering 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 circumsta nces). 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 b e

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

Wa ste 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 dete ction

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 envir onment

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 successfull y

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 di scussed 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 th e 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 t o 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, de sign, 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, Californ ia 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

disp osal 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 dischar ged 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

- ha zardous, 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 communi ties 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 Ac t 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 li quid 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, perco late 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 migr ate 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 th e 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

manageme nt 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 e xtend 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 leach ate 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 uni ts 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 wat er 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 groun d 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 wa ste

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

perman ent 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/o r 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.

Th erefore, 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 l and

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 s ludge

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

r equirements, 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 co

disposal will not exceed the initial moisture

holding 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, pastur e, 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 reu se 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.

Currentl y, 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 T oxic 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.

EP A) 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, decompose d 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 be en 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

histor ically 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 environm ental degradation by all

mining ventures is not yet known. Active operations

are regulated individually pursuant to the California

Code of Regulations, Chapter 15, the Porter

Cologne 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 d isposal 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 inact ive 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 Californi a 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 contai n 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 was te, 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 nec essary 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 wast e 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 so lid 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 (WD Rs) 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 Subtit le 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 assura nce

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

prog ram 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 Sub title 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 wate r 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 t heir

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 pursuan t

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 Ass essment 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 Re gional

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 (Porter

Cologne §13273[b]). 3. A finding whether hazardous waste is leaching

into surface or ground water on, under, and

wi thin 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 ei ghty 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 sum mer 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 h ad

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

Accou nt" 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 Unde rstanding 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 Region al 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 quantitie s 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 disch arged 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 dischar ge 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 Enforceme nt 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 potent ial 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 He alth 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 (Se ction

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

MEASUR ES

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. Contr ol 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 in clude 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 projec ts 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 B oard 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

i s 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 Wat er 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

in tensive 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 implement ation 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 w atershed, 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 e xperimental 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.

Add itionally, 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 var ious

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 proje ct 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 Reauthorizat ion

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 use s. 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 requirement s.

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 tha t 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

im plemented;

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 authoritie s 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

componen t. 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

proj ect, "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 statewi de, 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 No npoint 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 discha rges 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 con siderable 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 pollu tion." 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

po llution 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 certa in 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 primaril y 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. Co nstruction 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 thu s 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 mat erial. 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 a re 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 surf ace 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 a ny 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 col lecting

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 chemi cal 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

abandon ed 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

degr adation 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 pr obable 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 o r 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, p aved 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 d eleterious 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. U se 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

Agr icultural 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 practi ces. 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; th ese

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 c ould 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 c onsideration

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 operation s 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 pr oblem 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 t hat 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

in tensive 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 d ifficult

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

a greements 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 origi nate 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

surface s 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

extrem e

- 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 sa lts 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 maintain ed 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 f rom 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 basin

wide salinity problem is also an extremely slow

process. Good planning, now, to control this long

term, 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 wit h 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 economi c

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 irriga tion 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 degrad ation 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 managem ent 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. Sal inity 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

ri ses, 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 belo w 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 eno ugh 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

futur e 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

dire ctly 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 dr aining

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 sh ould 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 of ten 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 sy stems) 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 off

farm 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 accepta ble 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 bas in 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 b y

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 informat ion 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 culti vating 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 t reated 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 pesticid e 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 durin g 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

general ly 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 g rowth. 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 dispose d.

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

b ecome 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 w astes 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,

a nd 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 subst ances 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 ha ndled, 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 ra tes 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

hold ing 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, wat er 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 fa rm

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

dispose d 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

c ontributing 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 vege tative 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 th rough

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

lakes hore 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 nutr ient 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 ra ngelands.

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 pathoge ns 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

Manage ment 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 m easures 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 Commit tee 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

w ater 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

compl etion, 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 r ange 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 resol ve 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 livesto ck 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 imp rove 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 resul t

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 site

specific 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

Regiona l 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 t hat 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 managemen t 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 obj ectives 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

Man agement 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

(utilize d 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 use d, 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

qu ality 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 finan cial 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. Cont inue 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 si milar

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,

prope r 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 surfa ce 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 indi vidual.

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

residence s; (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.

Commerci al, 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 bee n 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 co mmunity

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 follow ing:

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 healt h 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 plann ing 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 schedule d 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 indiv idual 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 surfac e. 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 en courage 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 juri sdictions 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 agenc y, 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 contra ct 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 th e 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 pl ans

### 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 r ecord

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

reas on, 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 th ese 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 sy stem 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 info rmation

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 agen cy 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 p rocedure 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, lus h

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 ag ency 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

no t 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 WASTEWATE R

MANAGEMENT PLANS

On

- site wastewater management should be

implemented in urbanizing areas to investigate long

term 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. Wastew ater 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 populati on 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 irreversi ble 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 develop ment 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 on

site Wastewater Management Plans.

On

- site Wastewater Management Plans shall be

approved by the Regional Boa rd. 

## 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

gov ernments 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 s hould 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 le achfields; 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 recom mends 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

Boar d 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.

Man datory 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 bori ng 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

p ercolation 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 detec t 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) sh ould 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 set

back far enough to prevent this projected line

from intersecting the cut within 100 feet,

me asured 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 s hould 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 b e

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 applica tion rate should not exceed

0.3 gpd/sq. ft.

6. Drainfield 1 

### design 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 constructe d 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 betwe en 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, desig n 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 s ystems 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 m etal 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 t o

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 Boar d.

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 engine er 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 pro mote 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 sm eared

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 inch es 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 co nstructed 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 surfa ce 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 Agenc y'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 nee d 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 slu dge 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

infilt ration 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. M aintenance 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 ju risdictions 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 Resou rces 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

s tabilized 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

c orresponding 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 t o

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 wi th 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 existe nce, 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 t o 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

proced ures 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 b e

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. Garb age 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 mat erial 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

AN D 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 wat er,

less than separation specified by appropriate

percolation rate:

Percolation

Rate, min/in Distance, ft

----------------- ------------------

<1 50 1



### 1

- 4 20 1



### 5

- 29 8

>30 5

4. For seepage pits, distances between pit bottom

and usable g round water, including perched

ground water, less than separation specified by

appropriate soil type:

Soil Distance,ft.

--------------------- ------------------- Gravels 2 

### 50 1



### Gravels with

few fines 3 

### 20 1



### 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

s lower 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 Setb ack

Distance, ft

---------------- Domestic water supply wells in

unconfined aquifer 100

Watercourse 4 

### where geologic

conditions permit water migration 100

Reservoir 5 

### spillway elevation 200

Spring s, 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 an d 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 runni ng 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, reg ulation,

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 p articularly

favorable, parcel size shall not be less than one

half acre.

12. Within a reservoir 1 

### watershed where the density

for each land division is less than 2.5 acres for

areas without approved Wastewater

Management Plans.

13. For individual system s 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 dail y 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 affecte d, 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 origina l 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 exc eed 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 Bo ard.

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 A

27.

2. Discharges from individual sewage disposal

systems within the San Lorenzo River Watershed

shall be managed as follows:

a. Discharges shall be allowed, provid ing 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 Pla n, 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 dispos al 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 cre ated 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 o f:

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 standard s,

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. Wastew ater 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 on

site 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 Prohi bition 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

justific ation, 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.

Indivi dual, 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 co nsidered 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 Pr ohibitions, 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 suscep tibility 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 t o 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

S ediment 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 a nd 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 sedimentat ion 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 polic y 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 managemen t

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 r eservoirs,

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

oper ation 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 a dverse 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 ap proved 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 subsystem s 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 in clude: 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 prot ection,

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 Monter ey 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 s et 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 off

site 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 water shed, 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

Ha ndbook," 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 a nd 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 coordinati ng 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 co nsidered,

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 cont inuous 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 i nter

- 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. Th e 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 intens ive 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 earth en

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 pl acing 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 th ey 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 Fi ve 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 qu ality 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 loca l 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 earth en

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,

h ydromodification, 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

st reams, 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 fac tors

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 fl ood

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 se ts 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 ext ent 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

o btained 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 publi c 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 Range s 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 respon sible 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

concent rations 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 mi ne 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 b y 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. Bur eau 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 investig ations.

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

sp ecific 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

hav e 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

bi ological 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 p lan, 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 a ctions 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 a forementioned 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 provisi ons

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 r equires 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 Departm ent 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 manage ment 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 Be st

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 plann ing 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 relationship s 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 managemen t 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 achi evements, 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 Plann ing 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 Padr es 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 li ving 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 with in 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 im pact 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 vehi cles. 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 Fores t

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 prote cting

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

b urning, 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

develop ment 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 c onditions. 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 a nd 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 ac res 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 t o

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 plann ing

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 origin ating 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 recrea tion.

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 s ite

- 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., an d (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

alter natives.

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 polluti on 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,

contrac tors 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 m ay 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 conse rvation 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

lim itations. 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 availabl e 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 co astal 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 provide s 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 compel s 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, non

sterile 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 a nd/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

Pro gram , 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 yea rs 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 M AXIMUM DAILY LOAD FO R

SEDIMENT (INCLUDING CHORRO CREEK, LOS OS OS CREEK

AND THE MORRO BAY ES TUARY)

This TMDL was adopt ed 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. Environm ental 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

acce lerated 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 beneficia l uses.”

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 77

Numeric

Targets Parameter Numeric Target

Chorro and Los Osos Creeks and Tributaries Streambed Sediment

Residual Pool Volume 1 

### V* (a ratio) =

Mean values ≤ 0.21 (mean of at least 6 pools

per sampling reach)

Max values ≤ 0.45

Median Diameter (D 50 

### ) of Sediment

Particles in Spawning Gravels D 50 

### =

Mean values ≥ 69 mm

Minimum values ≥ 37 mm

Perce n t of Fine Fines (< 0.85 mm) in

Spawning Gravels P ercent fine fines ≤ 21%

Percent of Coarse Fines (all fines <

6.0 m m ) in Spawn i ng Grave l s Percent coarse fines ≤ 30 %

Morro Bay an d Estuary

Tidal Prism Volume 4,200 acre

- feet

Loading

Allocations 2



### (TMDL

expressed as

annual load) Watershed Total

(ton s/year,

rounded to near e st ton)

Chorro Creek at Re s er voir 6,541

Dairy Cree k 4 40

Pe n nington C reek 966

S a n 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 Tri butaries

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 pr imary habitat for

s teelhead in summer. Overwintering habitat requirements include deeper pools, undercut banks, side channels, and especially la rge, unembedded rocks, which provide shelter for fish against the high flows of winter. V* gives a direct measurement of the impa c t of sediment

on pool volume. It is the ratio of the amount of p ool 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 fif th 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 responsib le 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 Imp lementation 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 inspection s 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. Additio nally, 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 Ta rgets,

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 objective s.

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 P rogram).

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 Hollist er 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 P rovide 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/manager

directed program 2001

- 2002; on

going Farm Bureau

7 Land Acquisitions and

Conservation Easements Acquire or otherwise

protect lands in

cooperation with willing

land owners 2000

- 2010; on

going MBNEP

8 Fire Management Plan Develop and impl ement a

Fire Management Plan 2001

- 2006; on

going CDF

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; on

going County of San Luis Obispo,

Public and Private

Landowners; California

Department of Transportation

11 Sediment Traps Install sediment traps 2000

- 2007; on

going CSLRCD; 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 Sed iment 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 implementa tion 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

Implementa tion 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 in clusion of road

erosion control measures in Stormwater Management

Plan. Baseline Streambed

Parameters 3 , Turbidity

2 As above

3 RB and MBNEP Staff meet to review progress;

RB requests implementation tracking report from

Implementing Parties if not pro vided;

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 St aff 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 c onsider 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 requ est 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 1 0

- 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 averag e 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,

Tu rbidity

14 As above

3 Streambed Parameters, which are the Numeric Targets, include Residual Pool Volume, Median Diameter of Sediment Particles, Per cent

Fine Sedi ment, 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 modificati ons 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 achie ved

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 82 

# IX. B. SAN LORENZO RIVER TO TAL MAXIMUM DAILY LO AD FOR

SEDIMENT (INCLUDING CARBONERA CREEK, LOM PICO CREEK,

AND SHINGLE MILL CRE EK)

This TMDL was adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on May 16, 2003

. This TMDL was approved by:

Th e 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 eros ion 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 (i nterpretation 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 i s 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

point s on tributaries are as follows:

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 83

Parameter Numeric Target 1



### Residual Pool Volume 2 

### V* =

Mean values < 0.21

Max values < 0.45

Median Diameter (D 50 

### ) of Sediment Particles in Spawning

Gravels D 50 

### =

Mean values > 69 mm

Minimum values > 37 mm

Percent of Fi ne 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 re ach(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 pr imary 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 impa ct 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 smal ler.

### 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 par ticles

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 anthropogeni cally 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 32 4 3,030 989 48,149

Total Allocation = TMDL 3 

### 857 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 acti vities 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

provi de 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 variati on 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., landown ers 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 Califor nia 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 13 304, 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 Impleme ntation 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 muni cipalities 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 t he 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 Manage ment 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

pe rmits 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 protec t 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

st atus, 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 num eric 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 f isheries 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 a mended 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 Harv est 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 an d 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 prevent ion 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 Pre

Harvest 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 Val ley

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 priv ate 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 Ev aluate 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 Cr uz 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 Pl anning, 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 a ddress 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, Develop ed, 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 o f 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 a nd 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 A CTIVITY 4



### 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 Comp rehensive

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

comprehensiv e 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 sub mit 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 Part ies 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 Targe t

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 Trackabl e 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 actio ns 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 i mplementation 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 achievi ng 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 A CTIVITY 4



### 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 Implementatio n 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 progr ess 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 impl ementation 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 d ata 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

T he 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 U nited 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 Chorr o 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 h ave 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 regulations 1 

### that DHS follows

Fecal Coliform

Geometric Mean Maximum

14 MPN/100 mL a 

### 43 MPN/100 mL b



### 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 seeps 2 

### to Morro

Bay, based on Basin Plan objective

Fecal Coliform

Geometric Mean Maximum

200 MPN/100 mL a 

### 400 MPN/100 mL b



### a: Geometric mean of no t 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. Cha pter 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 C reek.

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 91

Allocations

and TMDL This TMDL is expressed as concentrations that are equal to the numeric targets. For

B ay 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 exc eed 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 lo ad 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 num eric targets which equal the water quality objectives.

Implementa

tion 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 acti vities 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

- determi ned 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 takin g 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 technic al

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 Bo ard 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 moni toring 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 R equirements.

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 Pla n 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 ta king 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 Implem ent 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 M BHD

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 Con tinue 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

managemen t 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 Sa n 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

servic es, 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

UC CE

– 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

Implemen

tation Year: IMPLEMENTATION MILESTONE MONITOR ING

ACTIV ITY 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

RWQ CB, 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 a ctions

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 co llected; evaluates progress on actions

8 RWQCB evaluates data collected and evaluates progress on actions

REC

- 1

stan dards

achieved REC

- 1

standards

achieved DHS

Stan

dards,

SHELL

achieve

d 9 RWQCB evaluates data collected and evaluates pr ogress 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; Numer ic 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

– Reg ional 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 F OR

SAN LUIS OBISPO CREE K

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 bene ficial 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%), can ine (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 a re 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 t o 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 locat ion 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 o f 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: locat ed 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 Alloc ations: 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 fo r 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 allocati ons in Table

- 1 include the

allocation to background.

Figure

- 1: Allocation Sites

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 98

Table

- 1 ALLOCATIONS AND RESP ONSIBLE PARTIES

Allocations in San Luis Obispo Creek Receiving Water

Fecal Coliform

Concentration

(MPN/100mL) 1 

### From

Site: To Upstream

Site: Responsible

Party 2, 3, 4 

### Allocation

Type 5



### 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

Type 5



### STEN1.5 All upstr eam

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 feca l

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% o f 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

assumptio ns 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.

IMPLEMENTATIO N

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 t he 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

Bo ard 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 Secti on 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 repo rt 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 Progr am 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 t o 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 Ex ecutive 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 C al 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 requir ed 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 M anagement 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 re porting, 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

Amend ment). 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 ACTIO NS OF RESPONSIBLE PA RTIES

Responsible

Party Item Best Management

Practice Di scussion

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 t o 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

fe cal 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 t he 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 th e 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

O utreach 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 impleme nt 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

delibe rate) 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 fe cal 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

in dividuals 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 colifo rm 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 dischargi ng fecal coliform to the Creek.

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 101 

# IX. G. SAN LUIS OBISPO CREE K TOTAL MAXIMUM DAIL Y LOAD

AND IMPLEMENTATION P LAN 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 n itrate

- 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, backgroun d, 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 c oncentration 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 earli est 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 shal l 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 increas e 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 imple ment 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 in tends 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 o bjective 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 app roval 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

 Implementatio n 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 ac tions 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 a chieve 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 impleme ntation 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 fo r 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 progr am

(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 up on, 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 tow ards 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 revisi ons 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 anticipa ted

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 M AXIMUM DAILY LO ADS FOR

SEDIMENT INCLUDING L LAGAS CREEK, RIDER C REEK, 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 Cali fornia 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 sedimentati on 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 narrat ive, 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 loa d 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 nume ric 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 concent ration

- 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 T argets 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 day s)

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

– 2 44 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 >2 44 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 Rid er 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 va lue 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 Numeri c Target 1



### Residual Pool Volume 2 

### V* =

Mean values < 0.21

Max values < 0.45

Median Diameter (D 50 

### ) of Sediment Particles in

Spawning Gravels D 50 

### =

Mean values > 69 mm

Minimum values > 37 mm

Percent of Fine Fines (< 0.85 mm) in Spawning

Gravels Percent f ine 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 avail able 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 th e 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 p rotocol (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, fall ow

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 wa tershed, 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 a re 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 Allocations 1



### (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 11,389 4



### (including Rider

Creek) WLA 284

Mouth of Pajaro LA 3047 58 3055 383 500 35

7,268 4



### WLA 191

Notes:

1 Annual load allocations (LA) and waste load allocations (WLA) express ed 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 disc harges 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 a gricultural 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 existi ng, 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 activ ities 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 a nd 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

prohibit ion 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

pr operties 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 Cre ek 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 disturbanc e 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 prohibit ion. 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 compli ance 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

r oads 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 complia nce 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 Administra tive 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

g eomorphic 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 S ection 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 opera tors 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 complia nce 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 s ection 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 target s 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 sedime nt 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 reduct ions 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 MAX IMUM 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 Adminis trative 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 Watson ville 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 concen tration, 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 bacte ria 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 colif orm. 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 sourc es are not

responsible for the allocation to natural sources.

### June 8, 2011 IV

- 111 ALLOCATIONS AND RESP ONSIBLE PARTIES

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS Receiving Water Fecal

Coliform (MPN/100mL) 1



### Waterbody Responsible Party

Watsonville, Struve, Harkins Sloughs Santa Cruz County

(Urb an 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 Cit y 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

w ho 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 moni toring 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 C ounty 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 Sto rm 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 pu blic 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 fi eld 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 t he 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 req uired 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, Tab le 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 improv ed 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 wit h 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

oper ators 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 modi fication 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 pa rty 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 wit h

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 Wa tershed 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 compl y 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 Prohibitio n. 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 Wa ste 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 submitt ed 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 administrati ve 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 compl y 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 m akes 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. thro ugh

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 c ontinue 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 sourc es 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 Watsonvill e 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 revi ews 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 Water shed. 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

Prevent ion 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

P ets 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 S tormwater 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/eli minate 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 d irect 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 re port 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 effective ness.

### 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.

Thes e 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 C reek, 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 o f 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 concentratio n, 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 Lor enzo 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) sto rm 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 MS4 s, 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 or der 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 (in cluding 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) fa rm 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

dra in 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 Allocation 1 

### 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 NPD ES 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



### Sa n 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 R iver, 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 wastew ater 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) A llocation

- 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 follo wing 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 COLLE CTION 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 Sa nta 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 Administrativ e 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

syste m 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 id entified 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 Wa ter 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 V alley

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’ TM DL 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 t he 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 impleme ntation;

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 w ith 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 Boa rd 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 Wasteloa d 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 A ttainment 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 ANIM ALS AND LIVESTOCK DI SCHARGES

Owners and/or operators of lands containing d omestic 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 l oad 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 Pro hibition. 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 Executi ve 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 s ubmitted 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 p ractices 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 prog ress 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 representa tive,

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 requir ements).

ONSITE WASTEWATER DI SPOSAL SYSTEM DISCHA RGES

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 de monstrate 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

appr oved 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 Water shed, 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’ op tions 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 C ruz, 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 t han 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) Cl ear 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 vol untary 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/ENC AMPMENT DISCHARGES N OT REGULATED BY A PE RMIT FOR STORM

WATER DISCHARGES

Owners of land that contain homeless persons and/or homeless encampments in the Sa n 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 La w, 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

demonstrati ng 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 Execu tive 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

Office r 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 discharge s 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 loa d 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 Evaluati on

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 o f 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 determ ine 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 Boa rd 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

ach ieving 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 adop ted 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.

Pr oblem 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 T MDLs 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 follow ing:

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 collecte d 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

All ocation Responsible Party

(Source)

NPDES/ORDER Number Receiving Water Fecal

Coliform (MPN/100mL)

Soquel Lagoon 1 

### City of Capitola

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s required to be

covered

by an NPDES permit)

Storm Water General Permit

NPDES No. CAS00000 4 Allocation

- 1 a



### Soquel Creek 2



### Noble Gulch 3 

### 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 Lagoon 1



### Soquel Cre ek 2



### Noble Gulch 3 

### 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

Colif orm (MPN/100mL)

Soquel Lagoon 1



### Soquel Creek 2



### Noble Gulch 3 

### Owners and operators of land used for/containing

pets

(Pet waste not draining to MS4s) Allocation

- 1 a



### Noble Gulch 3 

### Owners and operators of land used for/containing

farm animals and livestock

(Farm Animals and Livestock discharges) Allocation

- 1 a



### Soquel Lagoon 1



### Soquel Creek 2



### Noble Gulch 3 

### Owners/operators of land that include homeless

persons/encampments

(Homeless person/encampment discharges not

draining to MS4s) Allocation

- 2 b



### Soquel Lago on 1



### Soquel Creek 2



### Noble Gulch 3 

### 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 Po rter

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 c ollected 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 conse rvative 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 C ity 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 (includin g 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 whe ther 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 factor s.

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 Att ainment 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 t he 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 W ater 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 lo ad

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, impa ired 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 bacte ria 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 lan ds 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 c omply 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 Di scharge 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 t he 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

docum entation 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 ma nagement 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, demonstra ting 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

- par ty 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 dis charge 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 Prohib ition;

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 owner s 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 h omeless 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 yea rs 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, beginni ng 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 achie ving 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 implementi ng 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 excee dance. 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 evid ence 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 schedul e 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 conflue nce 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 tar gets 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 samp les

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 concentrati on 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 th an 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 Creek 1



### , Trout Gulch 2



### , Valencia Creek 3 

### Santa Cruz County

(Storm drain discharges to MS4s

required to be covered

by an NPDES permit)

Storm Water General Permit

NP DES No. CAS000004 Allocation 1 a



### Aptos Creek 1



### , Trout Gulch 2



### , Valencia Creek 3 

### Santa Cruz County Sanitation

District

(Sanitary sewer collection system

spills and leaks)

Order No. R3

- 2005

- 0043 Allocation 2 b



### LOAD ALLOCATIONS Receiving Water

Fecal Col iform

(MPN/100mL)

Waterbody Responsible Party

(Source)

Aptos Creek 1



### , Trout Gulch 2



### , Valencia Creek 3 

### Owners/Operators of land used

for/containing pets

(Pet waste not draining to MS4s) Allocation 1 a



### Aptos Creek 1



### , Trout Gulch 2



### , Valencia Creek 3 

### Owne rs/Operators of land used

for/containing

farm animals and livestock

(Farm Animals and Livestock

discharges) Allocation 1 a



### Aptos Creek 1



### , Trout Gulch 2



### , Valencia Creek 3 

### Natural sources Allocation 1 a

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 Allocatio n 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 Al location 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 as signed 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 ass umptions.

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 stor m 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 e nrollee 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 requ ire 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 ac tions 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 privat e 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 manageme nt 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 Munic ipal

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

submi tted. 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 pro vided 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 requirement s 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) st ream 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 DISCH ARGES

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 Disch arges 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

noti fy 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 lan ds 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 i n

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 TM DLs. 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 a n

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 Was te 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

Centr al 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, nonpoin t 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.

Responsibl e 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 ma y 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 fec al

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 COLI FORM

IN PAJARO RIVER WATE RSHED WATERS (INCLUD ING PAJARO

RIVER, SAN BENITO RI VER, LLAGAS CREEK, T EQUISQUITA

SLOUGH, SAN JUAN CRE EK, CARNADERO/UVAS C REEK, BIRD

CREEK, PESCADERO CRE EK, TRES PINOS CREEK , FURLONG

(JONE S) CREEK, SANTA ANA CREEK, AND PACHEC O 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 Administrativ e 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 tha n 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) st orm 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 Sys tems; 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 Paja ro 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 c oncentration

- based TMDLs applicable to each da y 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

an y 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) Rece iving Water Fecal

Coliform Allocation

WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Pajaro River 1



### San Benito River 2



### Llagas Creek 3



### Tequisquita Slough 4 

### Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and Monterey Counties.

Cities of Hollister, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and Watsonville

[ NPDES No. CAS0000 04]

(Storm Drain Discharges To MS4s Required to be

covered by an NPDES Permit ) Allocation 1

Pajaro River 1



### San Benito River 2



### Llagas Creek 3



### Tequisquita Slough 4 

### City of Hollister

[WDR 87

- 47]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems

Spills and Le aks)

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 Cou nty Sanitation District

[WDR Order R3

- 2003

- 0041]

(Sanitary Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems

Spills and Leaks) Allocation 2

Pajaro River 1



### San Benito River 2



### Llagas Creek 3



### Tequisquita Slough 4 

### Owners of Private Sewer Laterals

(Private Laterals Con nected to Municipal Sanitary

Sewer Collection and Treatment Systems) Allocation 2

LOAD ALLOCATIONS

Waterbody Responsible Party (Source)

Pajaro River 1



### San Benito River 2



### Llagas Creek 3



### Tequisquita Slough 4 

### Owners/Operators of Land Used for/Containing

Do mestic Animals

(Domestic Animal Discharges) Allocation 1

Pajaro River 1



### San Benito River 2



### Llagas Creek 3



### Tequisquita Slough 4 

### 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 a ny

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 f rom 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 f rom Hollister

R oad 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 B ird 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 Ll agas Creek from confluence with Pajaro River to Oak Glen Avenue. Including Furlong (Jones) Creek tributary from the uppermos t reach

of the waterbody to confluence with Llagas Creek.

4 Tequisquita Slough from confluence with San Felipe Lake to the uppermos t 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 allo cations 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.

Ma rgin 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) b y 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 th e 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 actio ns

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, pr ioritization, 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 b y 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 app roval 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 t ime 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 Genera l

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.

SANITAR Y 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 Dis charge 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, Ridg emark 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) (he rein 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 lette r 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 s ystem 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 mon itoring 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 operator s 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 Fec al 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 A dministrative 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 w ith 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 eviden ce 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 la teral 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 demo nstrating 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 req uirements; 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 STOR M 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 complia nce 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 D ischarge 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 Exe cutive 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 b y 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 practice s 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 represe ntative,

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 re quirements; 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 perfor m 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 impl ementation 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 monitor ing 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 althoug h 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 ex ample, 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

L aw.

### 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

Boar d 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 (Sta te

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

Reclama tion 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 th e 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

T he 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

Jul y 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 w astewaters 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

c onsolidated 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 operat ed 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 Reso lution 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 allowab le. 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 plan s 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 t o 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 p rinciples 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 pl aced 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 o rigin;

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 wit h 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. UNDE RGROUND

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 o f Health Services. Over

sight 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 prom ote

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 an d 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 nec essary 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 th e 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

sub ject 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 wa ter

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

contr ol 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 recl amation 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 discha rges 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

requirem ents) 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 fo r 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 discharg es 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

t he 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 i ndustrial 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 WATE R

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

requir ed.

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 Implementati on

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 l and 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 m anagement 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 contr ol 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 w ith 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, co ntain 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 hazard ous 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 HAZ ARDOUS

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 sa fe 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

- S oquel, 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.

Domes tic 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 domesti c 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 Watersh ed.

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 provi sions 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

biologic al 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 dis charges 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 bounde d 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 one

quarter (0.25) mile offshore from Granite Point

southerly to the southernmost boundary of Point

Lobos Reserve State Park.

5. Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwa ter 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 bypassi ng 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 vi sible 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 prohi bited.



# 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.

Mushr oom 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. EXC EPTIONS 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 qua lity 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 w ater 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 p ermit 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 pr oblems.

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 recommend ed 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 lim ited, 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

COORDINATI ON

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 CONFINEMEN T

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 plu s 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 ove rflow 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 pe rcent 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 C ontrol 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 land s 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 ac complished 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

adequat e 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 re quirements.

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 shal l 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

con struction 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 t he 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 P lan, 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 applica ble

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

provi sions 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 groun d 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 S ubbasin

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 U niversity

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 wastew aters 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 advancin g. 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 CON TROL

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 en courage 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 th at 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

Regiona l 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 B est

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 Manag ement

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 Sewe rage 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 B oard 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 o f 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 schedu le 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

develop ment 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 A rea 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 Dis trict'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

Ba y 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 9 62 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

DISCHARG E 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 publi c 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. Fol lowing 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 ON

SITE 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: Appreciati on 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 MONITO RING 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. G ROUNDWATER AMBIENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT

................................ ...................... 6

V.A.4.a. CALIFORNIA AQUIFER SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT

................................ ......................... 6

V.A.4.b. VOLUNTARY DOMEST IC 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 WA TER 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 ASSESS MENTS

................................ ................................ .......................... 10

V.C.4.b. GROUNDWATER ASSESSME NTS

................................ ................................ ............................. 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 state wide and regional

monitoring and assessment programs designed

to prov ide 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 pro grams address overall quality of waters of the State, generally without

regard to specific dischargers.



# I I

. OBJECTIVES

General objectives of statewide and regional

monitoring and a ssessment program s 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 mas s 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 quali ty 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 th e 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 f ederal and State

regulations and other users requesting water

quality data.



# II I . 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).

S ample analysis generally must be conducted by

a State

- certified laborator y ;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 re quirements 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

documentat ion 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 Ord er , 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 semi

annually ) 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

Inspec tion" 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 a nd

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 agen cies 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 a nd because many

facilities can be observed in a short period of

time. 

# V. AMBIENT

MONITORING AND

ASSESSMENT

V.A . STATE MONITORING

PROGRAM S

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 mis sion, 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 monito ring

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 Regulati on (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 rest ore 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 R egional Board ’ s prevention, regulatory , and

remedial actions.

The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

(SWAMP) is designed as a n 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

tr ends 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

S tate Board

, the R egional 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; consisten t

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 benefi cial 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 dupl ication. 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 S WAMP Program.

More detailed information on the SWAMP

program can be found at the Sta t e 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

(pri marily 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

demonstra te 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 pro blem 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 pesticide s (Table

6

- 1). Both TSM and State Mussel Watch (SMW)

Program publications and data can be found at

the State Board websit e

( 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 st ations 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

Carb ophenothion 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) Fo nofos (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

Musse ls are used as sentinel organism s for trace

metals and synthetic organic compounds in coastal

and estuarine waters. Although the mussel

populations of bays and estuaries are of a differen t

species than those found in the open coast, their

suitability as sentinels for monitor ing 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. T o 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 materia ls are

higher than naturally occurring background

levels

.

Tissue samples are analyzed for trace metals

includ ing aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper,

lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, silver and zinc and

for s yntheti c 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

Prote ction 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 prim e

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 pollutio n

, e.g ., in the vicinity

of discharge s. In some cases the SMW program

deploys freshwater clams or other organisms in to

fresh water streams and rivers to provide information

about toxic substance pollution in watershed systems. As with the TSM, stat ewide SMW reports are

published periodically , available at the State Board

website (http://www.swrcb.ca.gov)

.



# V.A.4. GROUNDWATER AMBIENT

MONITORING AND ASSES S MENT

The State Board , pursuant to provisions of the 1999

Budget Act, has developed a statewide Groundwater

Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA)

Program, which include s 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 groundwa ter 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 We ll Assessment

Project which addresses private domestic drinking

water wells.



## V.A.4.a. C ALIFORNIA AQUIFER

SUSCEPTIBILITY ASSESSMENT

The State Board , in coordination with the DHS, DWR,

and local water districts and purveyors, is

implementing the Califor nia 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 an alysis) and low

level 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 id entify 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 l and

- 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

ge ographic 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 V oluntary 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 groundw ater agencies. The

Voluntary Domestic Well Assessment Program

focus es 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 in cur s 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 C alifornia W at er C ode ). 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 S tate 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 monit oring 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 s ystematic

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’

acti vities 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

mo nitoring 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

o f 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 Reg ion are

monitored and evaluated. In addition to the tributary

based 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 impairmen ts 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 approach es 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 priori tization 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

assessmen ts 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 wat ersheds.

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 tha n 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 d ischarges 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 sup port 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 loca l 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), 2 04(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 do es not require, that each state

also include the status of ground waters of the state

in the report.

The 305(b) p rocess is the principal means by which

the US EPA, 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 pollut ion control policies and

programs designed to manage water quality.

Assessment information used for compiling a nd

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 water

body 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 Pl an 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 t h e 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 ident ify 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 impairme n t 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 sour ces, 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, Nation al

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

wa tershed scale assessments, which are , in turn,

u sed 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

wate r 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 gro undwater 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 evaluat ions 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) re port 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/rwq cb3/ and click on

CCAMP ).



# V.D. OTHER MONITORING

AND ASSESSMENT

ACTIVITIES

Nonpoint source investigations are conducted to (a)

identify the locatio n and nature of sources of nonpoint

pollutants; (b) develop information on the quantity,

strength, character, and variability of nonpoint source

pollutants; (c) evaluate impact s on receiving water

quality and biota; (d) provide information useful in

ma nagement of nonpoint source pollution; and (e)

monitor results of any control plan. Investigations are

typically undertaken th rough local agency and

watershed group efforts, funded by Federal Clean

Water Act grants and other sources.

Special studies and i ntensive 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 waterbodi es

, Water

Quality Protection Areas (formerly known as Areas of

Special Biological Significance) , or hydrologic units

requiring samplin g in addition to routine monitoring

programs. Results from these special studies may be

used for addre ssing 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 T

ahoe 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