Bucket: regassist   Key: v2/targeted-fetch/water/us/ca/tdf_6275c40c575406e053e2244f4a563547/content.md
Source: https://waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/docs/oceanplan2019.pdf

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA

Established 1972 Revised 2019

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

State of California

Gavin Newsom Governor

California Environmental Protection Agency

Jared Blumenfeld, Secretary

State Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 341-5250 Homepage: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov

E. Joaquin Esquivel, Chair Dorene D'Adamo, Vice Chair Tam M. Doduc, Member Sean Maguire, Member Laurel Firestone, Member

Eileen Sobeck, Executive Director

Jonathan Bishop, Chief Deputy Director Eric Oppenheimer, Chief Deputy Director

Cover Art by: Ivy Liao, 10 th Grade, 2012 California Coastal Art & Poetry Contest California Coastal Commission www.coast4u.org

Title Page Drawing by: Zev Labinger, 1997

State of California STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

Established 1972 Revised 2019

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA

Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California

Name Date Adopted Resolution Number Effective Date
Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California - Bacteria Provisions and a Water Quality Standards Variance Policy 8/7/2018 2018-0038 2/4/2019
Amendment to the statewide Ocean Plan of California addressing desalination facility intakes, brine discharges, and to incorporate other non- substantive changes 5/6/2015 2015-0033 1/28/2016
Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash and part 1 trash provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries in California 4/7/2015 2015-0019 1/12/2016
Adoption of the California Ocean Plan Amendments regarding model monitoring, vessel discharges, and non-substantive changes 10/16/2012 2012-0057 7/1/2013
Adopting the California Ocean Plan Amendment implementing State Water Board resolutions 2010-0057 and 2011-013 regarding State Water Quality Protection Areas and Marine Protected Areas 10/16/2012 2012-0056 7/1/2013
Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the California Ocean Plan regarding total recoverable metals, compliance schedules, toxicity definitions, and the list of exceptions 9/15/2009 2009-0072 3/10/2010
Amendment to the California Ocean Plan: (1) Reasonable Potential, Determining When California Ocean Plan Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations are Required, and (2) Minor Changes to the Areas of Special Biological Significance, and Exception Provisions 4/21/2005 2005-0035 10/12/2005
Amendment to California Ocean Plan Water Contact Bacterial Standards 1/20/2005 2005-0013 10/12/2005
Adoption of the Proposed Amendments to the California Ocean Plan regarding Table A, chemical water quality objectives, provisions of compliance, special protection for water quality and designated uses, and administrative changes 11/16/2000 2000-108 12/3/2001
Adoption of an Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California regarding revisions to the list of critical life stage protocols used in testing the toxicity of waste discharges 3/20/1997 97-026 7/23/1997
Name Date Adopted Resolution Number Effective Date
Approval of Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California regarding new water quality objectives in Table B 3/22/1990 90-027 3/22/1990
Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan 9/22/1988 88-111 9/22/1988
Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California 11/17/1983 83-087 11/17/1983
Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California 1/19/1978 78-002 1/19/1978
Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California 7/6/1972 72-045 7/6/1972

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Purpose and Authority......................................................................................1
B. Principles..........................................................................................................1
C. Applicability ......................................................................................................1
I. BENEFICIAL USES...................................................................................................3 I. BENEFICIAL USES...................................................................................................3
II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES .............................................................................4 II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES .............................................................................4
A. General Provisions ...........................................................................................4
B. Bacterial Characteristics...................................................................................4
B. Table 1. Fecal Coliform REC-1 Water Quality Objective for Water-Contact in
B. Ocean Waters ..................................................................................................5
B. Table 2. Enterococci REC-1 Water Quality Objective for Water-Contact in
B. Ocean Waters ..................................................................................................5
C. Physical Characteristics ...................................................................................7
D. Chemical Characteristics..................................................................................7
E. Biological Characteristics .................................................................................8
F. Radioactivity .....................................................................................................8
Table 3: Water Quality Objectives....................................................................9
III. PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................13 III. PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................13
A. General Provisions .........................................................................................13
B. Table 4 Effluent Limitation ..............................................................................14
C. Implementation Provisions for Table 3 ...........................................................15
Table 5: Background Seawater Concentrations (Cs) .....................................16
D. Implementation Provisions for Bacterial Characteristics.................................23
E. Implementation Provisions for Marine Managed Areas..................................25
F. Revision of Waste Discharge Requirements ..................................................29
G. Compliance Schedules in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits...........................................................................................................30
G. Table 6: Conservative Estimates of Chronic Toxicity .....................................30
H. Monitoring Program........................................................................................30
I. Discharge Prohibitions....................................................................................31
J. State Board Exceptions to Plan Requirements...............................................33
K. Implementation Provisions for Vessel Discharges..........................................33
L. Implementation Provisions for Trash ..............................................................33
M. Implementation Provisions for Desalination Facilities.....................................40
N. Water Quality Standards Variance .................................................................58
APPENDIX I DEFINITION OF TERMS.........................................................................59 APPENDIX I DEFINITION OF TERMS.........................................................................59
APPENDIX II MINIMUM LEVELS.................................................................................72 APPENDIX II MINIMUM LEVELS.................................................................................72
.....................................................72 .....................................................72
Table II-1 Minimum Levels - Volatile Chemicals Table II-2 Minimum Levels - Semi Volatile Chemicals ............................................74 Table II-1 Minimum Levels - Volatile Chemicals Table II-2 Minimum Levels - Semi Volatile Chemicals ............................................74
Table II-3 Minimum Levels - Inorganics ..................................................................76
Table II-4 Minimum Levels - Pesticides and PCBs..................................................78
APPENDIX III STANDARD MONITORING PROCEDURES ........................................79
Table III-1 Approved Tests - Chronic Toxicity (TUc) ...............................................93
APPENDIX IV PROCEDURES FOR THE NOMINATION AND DESIGNATION OF STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS. ...............................................94
APPENDIX V STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS...............................97
Table V-1 State Water Quality Protection Areas......................................................97
APPENDIX VI REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHICH TABLE 3 OBJECTIVES REQUIRE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................99
Table VI-1: Tolerance Factors for calculating normal distribution upper 95 percent tolerance bounds for the 95 th one-side percentile ...........................102
Figure VI-1. Reasonable potential analysis flow chart ...........................................103
APPENDIX VII EXCEPTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN.......................104
Table VII-1 Exceptions to the Ocean Plan .............................................................104
APPENDIX VIII MAPS OF THE OCEAN, COAST, AND ISLANDS ...........................105
Figure VIII-1. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in northern Region 1. ...105 Figure VIII-2. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Region 1 and Region 2.......................................................................................................106
Figure VIII-3. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in northern Region 3. ...107 Figure VIII-4. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Region 3 and northern Channel Islands. ............................................................................108
Figure VIII-5. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Channel Islands and Regions 4, 8 and 9....................................................................109

CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose and Authority

  1. In furtherance of legislative policy set forth in section 13000 of Division 7 of the California Water Code (CWC) (Stats. 1969, Chap. 482) pursuant to the authority contained in section 13170 and 13170.2 (Stats. 1971, Chap. 1288) the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) hereby finds and declares that protection of the quality of the ocean waters for use and enjoyment by the people of the State requires control of the discharge of waste to ocean waters and control of intake seawater in accordance with the provisions contained herein. The Board finds further that this plan shall be reviewed at least every three years to guarantee that the current standards are adequate and are not allowing degradation* to marine species or posing a threat to public health.

B. Principles

  1. Harmony Among Water Quality Control Plans and Policies.
  2. a. In the adoption and amendment of water quality control plans, it is the intent of this Board that each plan will provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.*
  3. b. To the extent there is a conflict between a provision of this plan and a provision of another statewide plan or policy, or a regional water quality control plan (basin plan), the more stringent provision shall apply except where pursuant to Chap. III.J of this Plan, the State Water Board has approved an exception to the Plan requirements, and except in chapter III.M, in which the provisions of this plan shall govern.

C. Applicability

  1. This plan is applicable, in its entirety, to point source discharges to the ocean. Nonpoint sources of waste discharges to the ocean are subject to Chapter I Beneficial Uses, Chapter II - WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES (wherein compliance with water quality objectives shall, in all cases, be determined by direct measurements in the receiving waters) and Chapter III - PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION Parts A.2, D, E, and I.
  2. This plan is not applicable to discharges to enclosed bays and estuaries or inland waters or the control of dredged material.*

_____________________________

  1. Provisions regulating the thermal aspects of waste discharged to the ocean are set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California.
  2. Provisions regulating the intake of seawater for desalination facilities are established pursuant to the authority contained in section 13142.5 subdivision (b) of the California Water Code (Stats. 1976, Chap. 1330).
  3. Within this Plan, references to the State Board or State Water Board shall mean the State Water Resources Control Board. References to a Regional Board or Regional Water Board shall mean a California Regional Water Quality Control Board. References to the Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA, or EPA shall mean the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

_____________________________

I. BENEFICIAL USES

_____________________________

II. WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

A. General Provisions

  1. This chapter sets forth limits or levels of water quality characteristics for ocean waters to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance. The discharge of waste shall not cause violation of these objectives.
  2. The Water Quality Objectives and Effluent Limitations are defined by a statistical distribution when appropriate. This method recognizes the normally occurring variations in treatment efficiency and sampling and analytical techniques and does not condone poor operating practices.
  3. Compliance with the water quality objectives of this chapter shall be determined from samples collected at stations representative of the area within the waste field where initial dilution is completed.

B. Bacterial Characteristics

  1. Water-Contact Standards

Subsection (a) of this section contains bacteria water quality objectives adopted by the State Water Board for ocean waters used for water contact recreation. Subsection (b) describes the beach notification levels for waters adjacent to public beaches and public water contact sports areas in ocean waters*.

a. State Water Board Water-Contact Objectives

Fecal coliform

A 30-day geometric mean (GM) of fecal coliform density not to exceed 200 per 100 milliliters (mL), calculated based on the five most recent samples from each site, and a single sample maximum (SSM) not to exceed 400 per 100 mL.

_____________________________

Table 1. Fecal Coliform REC-1 Water Quality Objective for WaterContact in Ocean Waters*

Indicator Magnitude Magnitude
30-day GM* SSM*
Fecal coliform density 200 per 100 mL 400 per 100 mL
GM = geometric mean SSM = single sample maximum mL = milliliter

Enterococci

A six-week rolling GM * of enterococci not to exceed 30 colony forming units (cfu) per 100 milliliters (mL), calculated weekly, and a statistical threshold value (STV) of 110 cfu/100 mL not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month, calculated in a static manner. U.S. EPA recommends using U.S. EPA Method 1600 or other equivalent method to measure culturable enterococci.

Table 2. Enterococci REC-1 Water Quality Objective for Water-Contact in Ocean Waters*

Indicator Estimated Illness Rate (NGI): 32 per 1,000 water contact recreators Estimated Illness Rate (NGI): 32 per 1,000 water contact recreators
Magnitude Magnitude
GM* (cfu/100 mL) STV* (cfu/100 mL)
Enterococci 30 110

The waterbody GM shall not be greater than the GM magnitude in any six-week interval, calculated weekly. The STV shall not be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month, calculated in a static manner.

NGI = National Epidemiological and Environmental Assessment of Recreational Water gastrointestinal illness rate

GM* = geometric mean

STV* = statistical threshold value

_____________________________

cfu = colony forming units mL = milliliter

Water Quality Standards Assessment

When applying the listing and delisting factors contained in the Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List, the GM, SSM, and STV shall be used as follows, unless a situation-specific weight of the evidence factor is being applied: Only the GM value shall be applied based on a statistically sufficient number of samples, which is generally not less than five samples distributed over a six-week period. However, if a statistically sufficient number of samples is not available to calculate the GM, then attainment of the water quality objective shall be determined based only on the SSM or STV*. When applying the situation-specific weight of the evidence factor for listing or delisting decisions, any available beach use or beach closure information shall be evaluated.

Minimum protective bacteriological standards for waters adjacent to public beaches and for public water-contact sports areas in ocean waters* are established in the California Code of Regulations, Title 17 (beginning at div. 1, ch. 5, § 7958 et seq.). When a public beach or public water-contact sports area fails to meet the standards, the California Department of Public Health or the local public health officer may post with warning signs or otherwise restrict use of the public beach or public water-contact sports area until the standards are met. The regulations impose more frequent monitoring and more stringent posting and closure requirements on certain high-use public beaches that are located adjacent to a storm drain that flows in the summer. The Title 17 bacteriological standards are not water quality objectives.

  1. Shellfish* Harvesting Standards
  2. a. At all areas where shellfish* may be harvested for human consumption, as determined by the Regional Water Board, the following bacterial objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column:
  3. (1) The median total coliform density shall not exceed 70 per 100 mL, and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed 230 per 100 mL.

_____________________________

C. Physical Characteristics

  1. Floating particulates and grease and oil shall not be visible.
  2. The discharge of waste shall not cause aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface.
  3. Natural light shall not be significantly reduced at any point outside the initial dilution zone as the result of the discharge of waste.
  4. The rate of deposition of inert solids and the characteristics of inert solids in ocean sediments shall not be changed such that benthic communities are degraded.
  5. Trash* shall not be present in ocean waters, along shorelines or adjacent areas in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses or cause nuisance.

D. Chemical Characteristics

  1. The dissolved oxygen concentration shall not at any time be depressed more than 10 percent from that which occurs naturally, as the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding waste materials.
  2. The pH shall not be changed at any time more than 0.2 units from that which occurs naturally.
  3. The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters in and near sediments shall not be significantly* increased above that present under natural conditions.
  4. The concentration of substances set forth in chapter II, Table 3, in marine sediments shall not be increased to levels which would degrade* indigenous biota.
  5. The concentration of organic materials in marine sediments shall not be increased to levels that would degrade marine life.
  6. Nutrient materials shall not cause objectionable aquatic growths or degrade indigenous biota.
  7. Numerical Water Quality Objectives
  8. a. Table 3 water quality objectives apply to all discharges within the jurisdiction of this Plan. Unless otherwise specified, all metal concentrations are expressed as total recoverable concentrations.
  9. b. Table 3 Water Quality Objectives

_____________________________

E. Biological Characteristics

  1. Marine communities, including vertebrate, invertebrate, algae, and plant species, shall not be degraded.*
  2. The natural taste, odor, and color of fish, shellfish,* or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not be altered.
  3. The concentration of organic materials in fish, shellfish or other marine resources used for human consumption shall not bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health.

F. Radioactivity

  1. Discharge of radioactive waste shall not degrade marine life.

_____________________________

Table 3 (formerly Table B): Water Quality Objectives

OBJECTIVES FOR PROTECTION OF MARINE AQUATIC LIFE

Units of Measurement Limiting Concentration: 6-Month Median Limiting Concentration: Daily Maximum Limiting Concentration: Instantaneous Maximum
Arsenic µg/L 8. 32 80.
Cadmium µg/L 1. 4 10.
Chromium (Hexavalent) (see below, a) µg/L 2. 8 20.
Copper µg/L 3. 12 30.
Lead µg/L 2. 8 20.
Mercury µg/L 0.04 0.16 0.4
Nickel µg/L 5. 20 50.
Selenium µg/L 15. 60 150.
Silver µg/L 0.7 2.8 7.
Zinc µg/L 20. 80 200.
Cyanide (see below, b) µg/L 1. 4 10.
Total Chlorine Residual (For intermittent chlorine sources see below, c) µg/L 2. 8 60.
Ammonia (expressed as nitrogen) µg/L 600. 2400 6000.
Acute* Toxicity TUa N/A 0.3 N/A
Chronic* Toxicity TUc N/A 1 N/A
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated) µg/L 30. 120 300.
Chlorinated Phenolics µg/L 1. 4 10.
Endosulfan* µg/L 0.009 0.018 0.027
Endrin µg/L 0.002 0.004 0.006
HCH* µg/L 0.004 0.008 0.012

Radioactivity

Not to exceed limits specified in Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4, Group 3, Article 3, section 30253 of the California Code of Regulations. Reference to section 30253 is prospective, including future changes to any incorporated provisions of federal law, as the changes take effect.

_____________________________

Table 3 (formerly Table B) Continued

OBJECTIVES FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH - NONCARCINOGENS

Table 3 (formerly Table B) Continued

Chemical 30-day Average (µg/L): Decimal Notation 30-day Average (µg/L): Scientific Notation
Acrolein 220 2.2 x 10 2
Antimony 1200 1.2 x 10 3
bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 4.4 4.4 x 10 0
bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 1200 1.2 x 10 3
chlorobenzene 570 5.7 x 10 2
chromium (III) 190000 1.9 x 10 5
di-n-butyl phthalate 3500 3.5 x 10 3
dichlorobenzenes* 5100 5.1 x 10 3
diethyl phthalate 33000 3.3 x 10 4
dimethyl phthalate 820000 8.2 x 10 5
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 220 2.2 x 10 2
2,4-dinitrophenol 4 4.0 x 10 0
ethylbenzene 4100 4.1 x 10 3
fluoranthene 15 1.5 x 10 1
hexachlorocyclopentadiene 58 5.8 x 10 1
nitrobenzene 4.9 4.9 x 10 0
thallium 2 2. x 10 0
toluene 85000 8.5 x 10 4
tributyltin 0.0014 1.4 x 10 -3
1,1,1-trichloroethane 540000 5.4 x 10 5

OBJECTIVES FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH - CARCINOGENS

Chemical 30-day Average (µg/L): Decimal Notation 30-day Average (µg/L): Scientific Notation
acrylonitrile 0.1 1.0 x 10 -1
aldrin 2.2e-05 2.2 x 10 -5
benzene 5.9 5.9 x 10 0
benzidine 6.9e-05 6.9 x 10 -5
beryllium 0.033 3.3 x 10 -2
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 0.045 4.5 x 10 -2
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 3.5 3.5 x 10 0
carbon tetrachloride 0.9 9.0 x 10 -1
chlordane* 2.3e-05 2.3 x 10 -5
chlorodibromomethane 8.6 8.6 x 10 0
chloroform 130 1.3 x 10 2

_____________________________

Chemical 30-day Average (µg/L): Decimal Notation 30-day Average (µg/L): Scientific Notation
DDT* 0.00017 1.7 x 10 -4
1,4-dichlorobenzene 18 1.8 x 10 1
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine 0.0081 8.1 x 10 -3
1,2-dichloroethane 28 2.8 x 10 1
1,1-dichloroethylene 0.9 9 x 10 -1
dichlorobromomethane 6.2 6.2 x 10 0
dichloromethane 450 4.5 x 10 2
1,3-dichloropropene 8.9 8.9 x 10 0
dieldrin 4e-05 4.0 x 10 -5
2,4-dinitrotoluene 2.6 2.6 x 10 0
1,2-diphenylhydrazine 0.16 1.6 x 10 -1
halomethanes* 130 1.3 x 10 2
heptachlor 5e-05 5 x 10 -5
heptachlor epoxide 2e-05 2 x 10 -5
hexachlorobenzene 0.00021 2.1 x 10 -4
hexachlorobutadiene 14 1.4 x 10 1
hexachloroethane 2.5 2.5 x 10 0
isophorone 730 7.3 x 10 2
N-nitrosodimethylamine 7.3 7.3 x 10 0
N-nitrosodi-N-propylamine 0.38 3.8 x 10 -1
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 2.5 2.5 x 10 0
PAHs* 0.0088 8.8 x 10 -3
PCBs* 1.9e-05 1.9 x 10 -5
TCDD equivalents* 3.9e-09 3.9 x 10 -9
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 2.3 2.3 x 10 0
tetrachloroethylene 2 2.0 x 10 0
toxaphene 0.00021 2.1 x 10 -4
trichloroethylene 27 2.7 x 10 1
1,1,2-trichloroethane 9.4 9.4 x 10 0
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.29 2.9 x 10 -1
vinyl chloride 36 3.6 x 10 1

Table 3 Notes:

_____________________________

from metal complexes must be comparable to that achieved by the approved method in 40 CFR PART 136, as revised May 14, 1999.

where: y = the water quality objective (in µg/L) to apply when chlorine is being discharged;

x = the duration of uninterrupted chlorine discharge in minutes.

_____________________________

III. PROGRAM OF IMPLEMENTATION

A. General Provisions

  1. Effective Date
  2. a. The Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan was adopted and has been effective since 1972. There have been multiple amendments of the Ocean Plan since its adoption.
  3. General Requirements For Management Of Waste Discharge To The Ocean*
  4. a. Waste management systems that discharge to the ocean must be designed and operated in a manner that will maintain the indigenous marine life and a healthy and diverse marine community.
  5. b. Waste discharged to the ocean must be essentially free of:
  6. (1) Material* that is floatable or will become floatable upon discharge.
  7. (2) Settleable material or substances that may form sediments which will degrade benthic communities or other aquatic life.
  8. (3) Substances which will accumulate to toxic levels in marine waters, sediments or biota.
  9. (4) Substances that significantly decrease the natural light to benthic communities and other marine life.
  10. (5) Materials that result in aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface.
  11. c. Waste effluents shall be discharged in a manner which provides sufficient initial dilution to minimize the concentrations of substances not removed in the treatment.
  12. d. Location of waste* discharges must be determined after a detailed assessment of the oceanographic characteristics and current patterns to assure that:
  13. (1) Pathogenic organisms and viruses are not present in areas where shellfish* are harvested for human consumption or in areas used for swimming or other body-contact sports.
  14. (2) Natural water quality conditions are not altered in areas designated as being of special biological significance or areas that existing marine laboratories use as a source of seawater.*

_____________________________

Table 4 (formerly Table A): Effluent Limitations

Unit of Measurement Limiting Concentration: Monthly (30- day Average) Limiting Concentration: Weekly (7-day Average) Limiting Concentration: Maximum at any time
Grease and Oil mg/L 25 40. 75
Suspended Solids See below +
Settleable Solids mL/L 1 1.5 3
Turbidity NTU 75 100. 225
pH Units Within limit of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times

Table 4 Notes:

_____________________________

If the lower effluent concentration limit is adjusted, the discharger shall remove 75% of suspended solids from the influent stream at any time the influent concentration exceeds four times such adjusted effluent limit.

  1. Table 4 effluent limitations apply only to publicly owned treatment works and industrial discharges for which Effluent Limitations Guidelines have not been established pursuant to sections 301, 302, 304, or 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act.
  2. Table 4 effluent limitations shall apply to a discharger's total effluent, of whatever origin (i.e., gross, not net, discharge), except where otherwise specified in this Plan.
  3. The State Water Board is authorized to administer and enforce effluent limitations established pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act. Effluent limitations established under sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 316, 403, and 405 of the aforementioned Federal Act and administrative procedures pertaining thereto are included in this plan by reference. Compliance with Table 4 effluent limitations, or Environmental Protection Agency Effluent Limitations Guidelines for industrial discharges, based on Best Practicable Control Technology, shall be the minimum level of treatment acceptable under this plan, and shall define reasonable treatment and waste control technology.
  4. Compliance with Table 4 effluent limitations for brine discharges from desalination facilities that commingle brine and wastewater prior to discharge to the ocean may be measured after the brine has been commingled with wastewater, provided that the permittee for the commingled discharge accepts responsibly for any exceedances of the Table 4 effluent limitations.

C. Implementation Provisions for Table 3

  1. Effluent concentrations calculated from Table 3 water quality objectives shall apply to a discharger's total effluent, of whatever origin (i.e., gross, not net, discharge), except where otherwise specified in this Plan.
  2. If the Regional Water Board determines, using the procedures in Appendix VI, that a pollutant is discharged into ocean* waters at levels which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above a Table 3 water quality objective, the Regional Water Board shall incorporate a water quality-based effluent limitation in the Waste Discharge Requirement for the discharge of that pollutant.
  3. Effluent limitations shall be imposed in a manner prescribed by the State Water Board such that the concentrations set forth below as water quality objectives shall not be exceeded in the receiving water upon completion of initial dilution, except that objectives indicated for radioactivity shall apply directly to the undiluted waste* effluent.

_____________________________

  1. Calculation of Effluent Limitations
  2. a. Effluent limitations for water quality objectives listed in Table 3, with the exception of acute toxicity and radioactivity, shall be determined through the use of the following equation:

where:

Ce = the effluent concentration limit, µg/L

Co = the concentration (water quality objective) to be met at the completion of initial* dilution, µg/L

Cs = background seawater* concentration (see Table 5 below, with all metals expressed as total recoverable concentrations), µg/L

Dm = minimum probable initial dilution expressed as parts seawater per part wastewater.

Table 5 (formerly Table C): Background Seawater* Concentrations (Cs)

Waste Constituent Cs (µg/L)
Arsenic 3.
Copper 2.
Mercury 0.0005
Silver 0.16
Zinc 8.
For all other Table 3 parameters Cs = 0

The mixing zone for the acute toxicity objective shall be ten percent (10%) of the distance from the edge of the outfall structure to the edge of the chronic mixing zone (zone of initial dilution). There is no vertical limitation on this zone. The effluent limitation for the acute toxicity* objective listed in Table 3 shall be determined through the use of the following equation:

_____________________________

Equation 2:

where:

Ca = the concentration (water quality objective) to be met at the edge of the acute mixing zone.

Dm = minimum probable initial dilution expressed as parts seawater per part wastewater (This equation applies only when Dm > 24).

_____________________________

Ce = Ca + (0.1) Dm (Ca)

value shall be considered to equal zero for days on which no discharge occurred.

Equation 3: lbs/day = 0.00834 x Ce x Q

where:

Ce = the effluent concentration limit, µg/L

Q = flow rate, million gallons per day (MGD)

For each numeric effluent limitation, the Regional Board must select one or more Minimum Levels (and their associated analytical methods) for inclusion in the permit. The 'reported' Minimum Level is the Minimum Level (and its associated analytical method) chosen by the discharger for reporting and compliance determination from the Minimum Levels included in their permit.

The Regional Water Board must select all Minimum Levels from Appendix II that are below the effluent limitation. If the effluent limitation is lower than all the Minimum Levels in Appendix II, the Regional Board must select the lowest Minimum* Level from Appendix II.

_____________________________

The Regional Board, in consultation with the State Water Board's Quality Assurance Program, must establish a Minimum* Level to be included in the permit in any of the following situations:

  1. A pollutant is not listed in Appendix II.
  2. The discharger agrees to use a test method that is more sensitive than those described in 40 CFR 136 (revised May 14, 1999).
  3. The discharger agrees to use a Minimum* Level lower than those listed in Appendix II.
  4. The discharger demonstrates that their calibration standard matrix is sufficiently different from that used to establish the Minimum Level in Appendix II and proposes an appropriate Minimum Level for their matrix.
  5. A discharger uses an analytical method having a quantification practice that is not consistent with the definition of Minimum* Level (e.g., US EPA methods 1613, 1624, 1625).
  6. Use of Minimum* Levels
  7. a. Minimum Levels in Appendix II represent the lowest quantifiable concentration in a sample based on the proper application of method-specific analytical procedures and the absence of matrix interferences. Minimum Levels also represent the lowest standard concentration in the calibration curve for a specific analytical technique after the application of appropriate method-specific factors.

Common analytical practices may require different treatment of the sample relative to the calibration standard. Some examples are given below:

Substance or Grouping Method-Specific Treatment Most Common Factor
Volatile Organics No differential treatment 1
Semi-Volatile Organics Samples concentrated by extraction 1000
Metals Samples diluted or concentrated ½ , 2 , and 4
Pesticides Samples concentrated by extraction 100

_____________________________

sample aliquot by a factor of ten. In such cases, this additional factor must be applied during the computation of the reporting limit. Application of such factors will alter the reported Minimum* Level.

7. Sample Reporting Protocols

8. Compliance Determination

Sufficient sampling and analysis shall be required to determine compliance with the effluent limitation.

a. Compliance with Single-Constituent Effluent Limitations

Dischargers are out of compliance with the effluent limitation if the concentration of the pollutant (see section 7c, below) in the monitoring sample is greater than the effluent limitation and greater than or equal to the reported Minimum* Level.

_____________________________

Dischargers are out of compliance with an effluent limitation which applies to the sum of a group of chemicals (e.g., PCBs*) if the sum of the individual pollutant concentrations is greater than the effluent limitation. Individual pollutants of the group will be considered to have a concentration of zero if the constituent is reported as ND or DNQ.

c. Multiple Sample Data Reduction

The concentration of the pollutant in the effluent may be estimated from the result of a single sample analysis or by a measure of central tendency (arithmetic mean, geometric mean, median, etc.) of multiple sample analyses when all sample results are quantifiable (i.e., greater than or equal to the reported Minimum* Level). When one or more sample results are reported as ND or DNQ, the central tendency concentration of the pollutant shall be the median (middle) value of the multiple samples. If, in an even number of samples, one or both of the middle values is ND or DNQ, the median will be the lower of the two middle values.

Due to the large total volume of powerplant and other heat exchange discharges, special procedures must be applied for determining compliance with Table 3 objectives on a routine basis. Effluent concentration values (Ce) shall be determined through the use of equation 1 considering the minimal probable initial dilution of the combined effluent (in-plant waste streams plus cooling water flow). These concentration values shall then be converted to mass emission limitations as indicated in equation 3. The mass emission limits will then serve as requirements applied to all in-plant waste streams taken together which discharge into the cooling water flow, except that limits for total chlorine residual, acute (if applicable per section (3)(c)) and chronic toxicity* and instantaneous maximum concentrations in Table 3 shall apply to, and be measured in, the combined final effluent, as adjusted for dilution with ocean water. The Table 3 objective for radioactivity shall apply to the undiluted combined final effluent.

9. Pollutant Minimization Program

The goal of the Pollutant Minimization Program is to reduce all potential sources of a pollutant through pollutant minimization (control) strategies, including pollution prevention measures, in order to maintain the effluent concentration at or below the effluent limitation.

_____________________________

Pollution prevention measures may be particularly appropriate for persistent bioaccumulative priority pollutants where there is evidence that beneficial uses are being impacted. The completion and implementation of a Pollution Prevention Plan, required in accordance with CA Water Code section 13263.3 (d) will fulfill the Pollution Minimization Program requirements in this section.

_____________________________

d. Elements of a Pollutant Minimization Program

The Regional Board may consider cost-effectiveness when establishing the requirements of a Pollutant Minimization Program. The program shall include actions and submittals acceptable to the Regional Board including, but not limited to, the following:

  1. An annual review and semi-annual monitoring of potential sources of the reportable pollutant, which may include fish tissue monitoring and other bio-uptake sampling;
  2. Quarterly monitoring for the reportable pollutant in the influent to the wastewater treatment system;
  3. Submittal of a control strategy designed to proceed toward the goal of maintaining concentrations of the reportable pollutant in the effluent at or below the calculated effluent limitation;
  4. Implementation of appropriate cost-effective control measures for the pollutant, consistent with the control strategy; and,
  5. An annual status report that shall be sent to the Regional Board including:
  6. (a) All Pollutant Minimization Program monitoring results for the previous year;
  7. (b) A list of potential sources of the reportable pollutant;
  8. (c) A summary of all action taken in accordance with the control strategy; and,
  9. (d) A description of actions to be taken in the following year.

10. Toxicity Reduction Requirements

_____________________________

In the context of a TMDL or a basin plan amendment, Regional Water Boards may implement a reference system/antidegradation approach or natural sources exclusion approach in accordance with Chapter III.D.2.b. A TMDL that implements either approach is subject to U.S. EPA's approval authority under Clean Water Act section 303(d) and such a TMDL or a basin plan* amendment that implements either approach may be subject to U.S. EPA's approval authority under Clean Water Act section 303(c).

2. Natural Sources of Bacteria

The implementation provisions contained in Chapter III.D.2 apply to municipal stormwater discharges regulated pursuant to Clean Water Act section 402(p) and non-point source discharges except on-site wastewater treatment system discharges. These implementation provisions do not apply to NPDES discharges other than municipal storm water discharges.

_____________________________

TMDLs include waste load allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources, and natural background levels to identify and enumerate each individual source.

In the context of a TMDL or a basin plan amendment developed to implement the applicable bacteria water quality objective, a reference system/antidegradation approach may be utilized to ensure: (1) bacteriological water quality is at least as good as that of an applicable reference system, and (2) no degradation of existing water quality is allowed when the existing water quality is better than the reference system. In such circumstances, the TMDL or basin plan amendment may include a certain frequency of exceedance of the applicable bacteria water quality objective based on the observed exceedance frequency in the applicable reference system* or the targeted waterbody, whichever is less.

In the context of a TMDL or a basin plan amendment developed to implement the applicable bacteria water quality objective, a natural source exclusion approach may be utilized after all anthropogenic sources of bacteria are identified, quantified, and controlled. In such circumstances, the TMDL or basin plan amendment may include a certain frequency of exceedance of the applicable bacteria water quality objective based on the observed exceedance frequency of the identified and quantified natural sources of bacteria of the targeted waterbody.

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

Within each SWQPA-GP the assessment shall be used to rank these existing discharges into low, medium and high threat impact categories. Cumulative impacts will be ranked similarly as well.

No new point source wastewater outfalls shall be established within an SWQPA-GP.

_____________________________

No new surface water seawater intakes shall be established within an SWQPA-GP. This does not apply to subsurface intakes where studies are prepared showing there is no predictable entrainment, impingement, or construction-related marine life mortality.

There shall be no increase in nonpoint sources or permitted storm drains directly into an SWQPA-GP.

2. Impaired Tributaries to MPAs, SWQPA-ASBS and SWQPA-GP

All water bodies draining to, or that are designated as, MPAs and SWQPAs that appear on the State's CWA section 303(d) list shall be given a high priority to have a TMDL developed and implemented.

F. Revision of Waste* Discharge Requirements

  1. The Regional Water Boards may establish more restrictive water quality objectives and effluent limitations than those set forth in this Plan as necessary for the protection of beneficial uses of ocean* waters.
  2. Regional Water Boards may impose alternative less restrictive provisions than those contained within Table 3 of the Plan, provided an applicant can demonstrate that:
  3. a. Reasonable control technologies (including source control, material* substitution, treatment and dispersion) will not provide for complete compliance; or
  4. b. Any less stringent provisions would encourage water* reclamation;
  5. Provided further that:
  6. a. Any alternative water quality objectives shall be below the conservative estimate of chronic toxicity,* as given in Table 4 (with all metal concentrations expressed as total recoverable concentrations), and such alternative will provide for adequate protection of the marine environment;
  7. b. A receiving water* quality toxicity objective of 1 TUc is not exceeded; and
  8. c. The State Water Board grants an exception (chapter III.J) to the Table 3 limits as established in the Regional Board findings and alternative limits.

_____________________________

Table 6 (formerly Table D): Conservative Estimates of Chronic* Toxicity

Constituent Estimate of Chronic* Toxicity (µg/L)
Arsenic 19.
Cadmium 8.
Hexavalent Chromium 18.
Copper 5.
Lead 22.
Mercury 0.4
Nickel 48.
Silver 3.
Zinc 51.
Cyanide 10.
Total Chlorine Residual 10.0
Ammonia 4000.0
Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated) a) (see below)
Chlorinated Phenolics a)
Chlorinated Pesticides and PCBs* b)

Table 6 Notes:

H. Monitoring Program

  1. The Regional Water Boards shall require dischargers to conduct self-monitoring programs and submit reports necessary to determine compliance with the

_____________________________

waste discharge requirements, and may require dischargers to contract with agencies or persons acceptable to the Regional Water Board to provide monitoring reports. Monitoring provisions contained in waste discharge requirements shall be in accordance with the Monitoring Procedures provided in Appendices III and VI.

  1. The Regional Water Board may require monitoring of bioaccumulation of toxicants in the discharge zone. Organisms and techniques for such monitoring shall be chosen by the Regional Water Board on the basis of demonstrated value in waste* discharge monitoring.

I. Discharge Prohibitions

1. Hazardous Substances

2. Areas Designated for Special Water Quality Protection

3. Sludge

4. By-Passing

_____________________________

5. Vessels

6. Trash*

The discharge of Trash to surface waters of the State or the deposition of Trash where it may be discharged into surface waters of the State is prohibited. Compliance with this prohibition of discharge shall be achieved as follows:

_____________________________

J. State Board Exceptions to Plan Requirements

  1. The State Water Board may, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, subsequent to a public hearing, and with the concurrence of the Environmental Protection Agency, grant exceptions where the Board determines:
  2. a. The exception will not compromise protection of ocean* waters for beneficial uses, and,
  3. b. The public interest will be served.
  4. All exceptions issued by the State Water Board and in effect at the time of the Triennial Review will be reviewed at that time. If there is sufficient cause to reopen or revoke any exception, the State Water Board may direct staff to prepare a report and to schedule a public hearing. If after the public hearing the State Water Board decides to re-open, revoke, or re-issue a particular exception, it may do so at that time.
  5. K. Implementation Provisions for Vessel Discharges
  6. Vessel discharges must comply with State Lands Commission (SLC) requirements for ballast water discharges and hull fouling to control and prevent the introduction of non-indigenous species, found in the Public Resources Code sections 71200 et seq. and title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 22700 et. seq.
  7. Discharges incidental to the normal operation large passenger vessels* and ocean- going vessels must be covered and comply with an individual or general NPDES permit.
  8. Vessel discharges must not result in violations of water quality objectives in this plan.
  9. Vessels subject to the federal NPDES Vessel General Permit (VGP) which are not large passenger vessels must follow the best management practices for graywater as required in the VGP, including the use of only those cleaning agents (e.g., soaps and detergents) that are phosphate-free, non-toxic, and nonbioaccumulative.
  10. L. Implementation Provisions for Trash* [effective January 12, 2016 (only Section L)]
  11. Applicability
  12. a. These Trash Provisions* shall be implemented through a prohibition of discharge (Chapter III.I.6) and through NPDES permits issued pursuant to section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act, waste discharge

_____________________________

requirements (WDRs), or waivers of WDRs (as set forth in Chapter III.L.2 and Chapter III.L.3 below).

Permitting authorities* shall include the following requirements in NPDES permits issued pursuant to Federal Clean Water Act section 402(p):

1 In the Los Angeles Region, there are fifteen (15) trash TMDLs for the following watersheds and water bodies: Los Angeles River Watershed, Ballona Creek, Malibu Creek Watershed, Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore, San Gabriel River East Fork, Revolon Slough and Beardsley Wash, Ventura River Estuary, Machado Lake, Lake Elizabeth, Lake Hughes, Munz Lake, Peck Road Park Lake, Echo Park Lake, Lincoln Park Lake and Legg Lake. Three of these were established by the U.S. EPA: Peck Road Park Lake, Echo Park Lake and Lincoln Park Lake.

_____________________________

permittees. The MS4 permittee may determine the locations or land uses within its jurisdiction to implement any combination of controls. The MS4 permittee shall demonstrate that such combination achieves full capture system equivalency. The MS4 permittee may determine which controls to implement to achieve compliance with full capture system equivalency. It is, however, the State Water Board's expectation that the MS4 permittee will elect to install full capture systems* where such installation is not cost-prohibitive.

Termination of permit coverage for industrial and construction storm water* dischargers shall be conditioned upon the proper operation and maintenance

_____________________________

of all controls (e.g., full capture systems, multi-benefit projects, other treatment controls, and/or institutional controls) used at their facility(ies).

3. Other Dischargers

A permitting authority may require dischargers, described in Chapter III.I.6.c or Chapter III.I.6.d, that are not subject to Chapter III.L.2 herein, to implement any appropriate Trash controls in areas or facilities that may generate Trash. Such areas or facilities may include (but are not limited to) high usage campgrounds, picnic areas, beach recreation areas, parks not subject to an MS4 permit, or marinas.

4. Time Schedule

The permitting authority shall modify, re-issue, or newly adopt NPDES permits issued pursuant to section 402(p) of the Federal Clean Water Act that are subject to the provisions of Chapter III.L.2 herein to include requirements consistent with these Trash Provisions. The permitting authorities* shall abide by the following time schedules:

2 The time schedule requirement in Chapter III.L.4.a.1 requiring MS4 permittees to elect Chapter III.L.2.a.1 (Track 1) or Chapter III.L.2.a.2 (Track 2) does not apply to MS4 permittees subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay Water Board) or the East Contra Costa Municipal Storm Water Permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) because those permits already require control requirements substantially equivalent to Track 2. The time schedule requirement in Chapter III.L.4.a.1 requiring MS4 permittees to submit an implementation plan does not apply to the above permittees if the pertinent permitting authority determines that such permittee has already submitted an implementation plan prior to the effective date of the Trash Provisions that is equivalent to the implementation plan required by Chapter III.L.4.a.1. In the aforementioned permits, the pertinent permitting authority may establish an earlier full compliance deadline than that specified in Chapter III.L.4.a.3.

_____________________________

_____________________________

require these permittees to demonstrate achievement of interim milestones such as average load reductions of ten percent (10%) per year or other progress to full implementation. In no case may the final compliance date be later than fifteen (15) years from the effective date of these Trash Provisions*.

_____________________________

5. Monitoring and Reporting

The permitting authority* must include monitoring and reporting requirements in its implementing permits. The following monitoring and reporting provisions are the minimum requirements that must be included within the implementing permits:

_____________________________

M. Implementation Provisions for Desalination Facilities*

  1. Applicability and General Provisions
  2. a. Chapter III.M applies to desalination facilities using seawater. Chapter III.M.2 does not apply to desalination facilities operated by a federal agency. Chapter III.M.2, M.3, and M.4 do not apply to portable desalination facilities that withdraw less than 0.10 million gallons per day (MGD) of seawater and are operated by a governmental agency. These standards do not alter or limit in any way the authority of any public agency to implement its statutory obligations. The Executive Director of the State Water Board may temporarily waive the application of chapter III.M to desalination facilities that are operating to serve as a critical short-term water supply during a state of emergency as declared by the Governor.
  3. b. Definitions of New, Expanded, and Existing Facilities:

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

that result in the increased intake or mortality of all forms of marine life, unless the regional water board determines that additional measures that minimize intake and mortality of all forms of marine life are feasible* for the existing portions of the facility.

_____________________________

determination on the power plant remaining in compliance with the Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling.

_____________________________

_____________________________

III.M.2.b.(2) shall not be used by itself to declare subsurface intakes as not feasible.

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

marine life than a facility using wastewater dilution or multiport diffusers, then the facility must either: (1) cease using the alternative brine discharge technology and install and use wastewater dilution or multiport diffusers to discharge brine waste, or (2) re-design the alternative brine discharge technology system to minimize intake and mortality of all forms of marine life to a level that is comparable with wastewater dilution if wastewater is available, or multiport diffusers if wastewater is unavailable,* subject to regional water board approval.

_____________________________

implementation of the facility's required site, design, and technology measures.

_____________________________

mortality shall form the basis for the mitigation provided pursuant to this section.

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

Where:

Ce= the effluent concentration limit, ppt

Co= the salinity concentration to be met at the completion of initial dilution= 2.0 ppt + Cs

Cs= the natural background salinity,* ppt

Dm= minimum probable initial dilution expressed as parts seawater per part brine* discharge

_____________________________

_____________________________

_____________________________

4. Monitoring and Reporting Programs

_____________________________

N. Water Quality Standards Variance

Federal regulations establish an explicit regulatory framework for the adoption of a water quality standards variance (WQS Variance) that states may use to implement adaptive management approaches to improve water quality (40 C.F.R. § 131.14 (herein referred to as the federal rule)). The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards are not required to adopt specific authorizing provisions into state law before establishing a WQS Variance consistent with the federal rule. The following explains the existing requirements that a water board must follow to establish a WQS Variance* consistent with the federal rule.

Under the federal rule, a WQS Variance may be adopted for one or more NPDES dischargers or for a water body or waterbody segment, but the WQS Variance only applies to the discharger(s) or the water body or waterbody segment specified in the WQS Variance*.

The federal rule specifies that any WQS Variance is not effective unless and until it is approved by U.S. EPA. The federal rule also specifies that a WQS Variance is subject to the public participation requirements at 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 131.20(b), which requires that one or more public hearings be held in accordance with state law and U.S. EPA's public participation regulation (40 C.F.R. part 25).

Where a discharger-specific WQS Variance is established by a single permit, including an individual permit or a general permit, or other order, the federal rule's public participation requirements must be satisfied, and the provisions in the permit or other order that rely upon the discharger-specific WQS Variance must be conditioned upon U.S. EPA approval. Because the establishment of a dischargerspecific WQS Variance in such a permit or other order is not the establishment or revision of a rule, the permit action need not be accompanied by a rulemaking action. The applicable hearing requirement for any other WQS Variance would be subject to the hearing requirement and other procedures applicable to revising a water quality control plan, which are consistent with the federal rule's public participation requirements.

_____________________________

ACUTE TOXICITY

Expressed in Toxic Units Acute (TUa)

LC 50 (percent waste giving 50% survival of test organisms) shall be determined by static or continuous flow bioassay techniques using standard marine test species as specified in Appendix III. If specific identifiable substances in wastewater can be demonstrated by the discharger as being rapidly rendered harmless upon discharge to the marine environment, but not as a result of dilution, the LC 50 may be determined after the test samples are adjusted to remove the influence of those substances.

When it is not possible to measure the 96-hour LC 50 due to greater than 50 percent survival of the test species in 100 percent waste, the toxicity concentration shall be calculated by the expression:

where:

S = percentage survival in 100% waste. If S > 99, TUa shall be reported as zero.

ALL FORMS OF MARINE LIFE includes all life stages of all marine species.

AREA PRODUCTION FOREGONE (APF), also known as habitat production foregone, is an estimate of the area that is required to produce (replace) the same amount of larvae or propagules that are removed via entrainment at a desalination facilities intakes. APF is calculated by multiplying the proportional mortality by the source water body, which are both determined using an empirical transport model.*

AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE (ASBS) are those areas designated by the State Water Board as ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that maintenance of natural water quality is assured. All Areas of Special Biological Significance are also classified as a subset of STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS. ASBS are also referred to as State Water Quality Protection Areas - Areas of Special Biological Significance (SWQPA-ASBS).

_____________________________

APPENDIX I DEFINITION OF TERMS

Expressed as Toxic Units Chronic (TUc)

The NOEL is expressed as the maximum percent effluent or receiving water* that causes no observable effect on a test organism, as determined by the result of a critical life stage toxicity test listed in Appendix III, Table III-1.

_____________________________

DEGRADE: Degradation shall be determined by comparison of the waste field and reference site(s) for characteristic species diversity, population density, contamination, growth anomalies, debility, or supplanting of normal species by undesirable plant and animal species. Degradation occurs if there are significant* differences in any of three major biotic groups, namely, demersal fish, benthic invertebrates, or attached algae. Other groups may be evaluated where benthic species are not affected, or are not the only ones affected.

DESALINATION FACILITY is an industrial facility that processes water to remove salts and other components from the source water to produce water that is less saline than the source water.

DICHLOROBENZENES shall mean the sum of 1,2- and 1,3-dichlorobenzene.

DOWNSTREAM OCEAN WATERS shall mean waters downstream with respect to ocean currents.

EELGRASS BEDS are aggregations of the aquatic plant species of the genus Zostera .

ENDOSULFAN shall mean the sum of endosulfan-alpha and -beta and endosulfan sulfate.

_____________________________

California Water Code, Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait downstream to Carquinez Bridge, and appropriate areas of the Smith, Klamath, Mad, Eel, Noyo, and Russian Rivers.

[Rational equation is used to compute the peak flow rate: Q = C · I · A, where Q = design flow rate (cubic feet per second, cfs); C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless); I = design rainfall intensity (inches per hour, as determined per the rainfall isohyetal map specific to each region, and A = subdrainage area (acres).]

Prior to installation, full capture systems must be certified by the Executive Director, or designee, of the State Water Board. Uncertified full capture systems will not satisfy the requirements of these Trash Provisions. To request certification, a permittee shall submit a certification request letter that includes all relevant supporting documentation to the State Water Board's Executive Director. The Executive Director, or designee, shall issue a written determination approving or denying the certification of the proposed full capture system or conditions of approval, including a schedule to review and reconsider the certification. Full capture systems certified by the Los Angeles Regional Water Board prior to the effective date of these Trash Provisions and full capture systems listed in Appendix I of the Bay Area-wide Trash Capture Demonstration Project, Final Project Report (May 8, 2014) will satisfy the requirements of these Trash Provisions, unless the Executive Director, or designee, of the State Water Board determines otherwise.

_____________________________

that capture runoff from the relevant areas of land (priority land uses, significant trash generating areas, facilities or sites regulated by NPDES permits for discharges of storm water associated with industrial activity, or specific land uses or areas that generate substantial amounts of Trash, as applicable). The full capture system equivalency is a Trash load reduction target that the permittee quantifies by using an approach, and technically acceptable and defensible assumptions and methods for applying the approach, subject to the approval of permitting authority*. Examples of such approaches include, but are not limited to, the following:

_____________________________

For a submerged buoyant discharge, characteristic of most municipal and industrial wastes that are released from the submarine outfalls, the momentum of the discharge and its initial buoyancy act together to produce turbulent mixing. Initial dilution in this case is completed when the diluting wastewater ceases to rise in the water column and first begins to spread horizontally.

For shallow water submerged discharges, surface discharges, and nonbuoyant discharges, characteristic of cooling water wastes and some individual discharges, turbulent mixing results primarily from the momentum of discharge. Initial dilution, in these cases, is considered to be completed when the momentum induced velocity of the discharge ceases to produce significant* mixing of the waste, or the diluting plume reaches a fixed distance from the discharge to be specified by the Regional Board, whichever results in the lower estimate for initial dilution.

_____________________________

pollutants, facilitate storm water storage onsite, infiltrate storm water into the ground to replenish groundwater supplies, or improve the quality of receiving groundwater and surface water. (See Water Code § 10564.)

_____________________________

include projects designed to: infiltrate, recharge or store storm water for beneficial reuse; develop or enhance habitat and open space through storm water and nonstorm water management; and/or reduce storm water* and non-storm water runoff volume.

Either method to establish natural background salinity may be used for the purpose of determining compliance with the receiving water limitation or an effluent limitation for salinity. If a reference location(s) is used for compliance monitoring, the permit should specify that historical data shall be used if reference location data becomes unavailable. An owner or operator shall submit to the regional water board all necessary information to establish natural background salinity.

_____________________________

_____________________________

Equivalent alternate land uses : An MS4 permittee with regulatory authority over priority land uses may issue a request to the applicable permitting authority that the MS4 permittee be allowed to substitute one or more land uses identified above with alternates land use within the MS4 permittee's jurisdiction that generates rates of Trash that are equivalent to or greater than the priority land use(s) being substituted. The land use area requested to substitute for a priority land use need not be an acre-for-acre substitution but may involve one or more priority land uses, or a fraction of a priority land use, or both, provided the total trash generated in the equivalent alternative land use is equivalent to or greater than the total Trash generated from the priority land use(s) for which substitution is requested. Comparative Trash generation rates shall be established through the reporting of quantification measures such as street sweeping and catch basin cleanup records; mapping; visual trash presence surveys, such as the 'Keep America Beautiful Visible Litter Survey'; or other information as required by the permitting authority*.

PROPORTIONAL MORTALITY, Pm, is percentage of larval organisms or propagules in the source water body that is expected to be entrained at a desalination facility's intake. It is assumed that all entrained larvae or propagules die as a result of entrainment.

RECEIVING WATER, for permitted storm water discharges and nonpoint sources, should be measured at the point of discharge(s), in the surf zone immediately where runoff from an outfall meets the ocean water (a.k.a., at point zero).

_____________________________

SINGLE SAMPLE MAXIMUM (SSM) is a maximum value not to be exceeded in any single sample.

_____________________________

STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS (SWQPAs) are nonterrestrial marine or estuarine areas designated to protect marine species or biological communities from an undesirable alteration in natural water quality. All Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)* that were previously designated by the State Water Board in Resolutions 74-28, 74-32, and 75-61 are now also classified as a subset of State Water Quality Protection Areas and require special protections afforded by this Plan.

STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS - GENERAL PROTECTION (SWQPA-GP) designated by the State Water Board to protect marine species and biological communities from an undesirable alteration in natural water quality within State Marine Parks and State Marine Conservation Areas.

STATISTICAL THRESHOLD VALUE (STV) for the bacteria water quality objective is a set value that approximates the 90th percentile of the water quality distribution of a bacterial population. The STV for the bacteria water quality objective* is 110 cfu/100mL.

STORM WATER has the same meaning set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 122.26(b)(13) (Nov. 16, 1990).

SUBSURFACE INTAKE, for the purposes of chapter III.M, is an intake withdrawing seawater* from the area beneath the ocean floor or beneath the surface of the earth inland from the ocean.

SURFGRASS BEDS are aggregations of marine flowering plants of the genus Phyllospadix .

TCDD EQUIVALENTS shall mean the sum of the concentrations of chlorinated dibenzodioxins (2,3,7,8-CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (2,3,7,8-CDFs) multiplied by their respective toxicity factors, as shown in the table below.

_____________________________

Isomer Group Toxicity Equivalence Factor
2,3,7,8-tetra CDD 1
2,3,7,8-penta CDD 0.5
2,3,7,8-hexa CDDs 0.1
2,3,7,8-hepta CDD 0.01
octa CDD 0.001
2,3,7,8 tetra CDF 0.1
1,2,3,7,8 penta CDF 0.05
2,3,4,7,8 penta CDF 0.5
2,3,7,8 hexa CDFs 0.1
2,3,7,8 hepta CDFs 0.01
octa CDF 0.001

_____________________________

APPENDIX II MINIMUM* LEVELS

The Minimum Levels identified in this appendix represent the lowest concentration of a pollutant that can be quantitatively measured in a sample given the current state of performance in analytical chemistry methods in California. These Minimum Levels were derived from data provided by state-certified analytical laboratories in 1997 and 1998 for pollutants regulated by the California Ocean Plan and shall be used until new values are adopted by the State Water Board. There are four major chemical groupings: volatile chemicals, semi-volatile chemicals, inorganics, pesticides & PCBs.* 'No Data' is indicated by '--'.

Table II-1 Minimum* Levels - Volatile Chemicals

Volatile Chemicals CAS Number Minimum* Level (µg/L): GC Method a Minimum* Level (µg/L): GCMS Method b
Acrolein 107028 2 5
Acrylonitrile 107131 2 2
Benzene 71432 0.5 2
Bromoform 75252 0.5 2
Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 0.5 2
Chlorobenzene 108907 0.5 2
Chlorodibromomethane 124481 0.5 2
Chloroform 67663 0.5 2
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 95501 0.5 2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 541731 0.5 2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (volatile) 106467 0.5 2
Dichlorobromomethane 75274 0.5 2
1,1-Dichloroethane 75343 0.5 1
1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 0.5 2
1,1-Dichloroethylene 75354 0.5 2
Dichloromethane 75092 0.5 2
1,3-Dichloropropene (volatile) 542756 0.5 2
Ethyl benzene 100414 0.5 2
Methyl Bromide 74839 1 2
Methyl Chloride 74873 0.5 2
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 0.5 2
Tetrachloroethylene 127184 0.5 2
Toluene 108883 0.5 2
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71556 0.5 2

_____________________________

Volatile Chemicals CAS Number Minimum* Level (µg/L): GC Method a Minimum* Level (µg/L): GCMS Method b
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 0.5 2
Trichloroethylene 79016 0.5 2
Vinyl Chloride 75014 0.5 2

Table II-1 Notes

_____________________________

Table II-2 Minimum* Levels - Semi Volatile Chemicals

Semi-Volatile Chemicals CAS Number Minimum* Level (µg/L): GC Method a, * Minimum* Level (µg/L): GCMS Method b, * Minimum Level (µg/L): HPLC Method c, Minimum* Level (µg/L): COLOR Method d
Acenapthylene 208968 -- 10 0.2 --
Anthracene 120127 -- 10 2 --
Benzidine 92875 -- 5 -- --
Benzo(a)anthracene 56553 -- 10 2 --
Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 -- 10 2 --
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205992 -- 10 10 --
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191242 -- 5 0.1 --
Benzo(k)floranthene 207089 -- 10 2 --
Bis 2-(1-Chloroethoxy) methane 111911 -- 5 -- --
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 111444 10 1 -- --
Bis(2- Chloroisopropyl)ether 3963832 9 10 2 -- --
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 117817 10 5 -- --
2-Chlorophenol 95578 2 5 -- --
Chrysene 218019 -- 10 5 --
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84742 -- 10 -- --
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53703 -- 10 0.1 --
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (semivolatile) 95504 2 2 -- --
1,3-Dichlorobenzene (semivolatile) 541731 2 1 -- --
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (semivolatile) 106467 2 1 -- --
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 -- 5 -- --
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 1 5 -- --
1,3-Dichloropropene 542756 -- 5 --
Diethyl phthalate 84662 10 2 -- --
Dimethyl phthalate 131113 10 2 -- --
2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 1 2 -- --
2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 5 5 -- --
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121142 10 5 -- --
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 122667 -- 1 -- --
Fluoranthene 206440 10 1 0.05 --
Fluorene 86737 -- 10 0.1 --
Hexachlorobenzene 118741 5 1 -- --

_____________________________

Table II-2 (Continued) Minimum* Levels - Semi Volatile Chemicals

Semi-Volatile Chemicals CAS Number Minimum* Level (µg/L): GC Method a, * Minimum* Level (µg/L): GCMS Method b, * Minimum Level (µg/L): HPLC Method c, Minimum* Level (µg/L): COLOR Method d
Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 5 1 -- --
Hexachlorocyclopentadie ne 77474 5 5 -- --
Hexachloroethane 67721 5 1 -- --
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193395 -- 10 0.05 --
Isophorone 78591 10 1 -- --
2-methyl-4,6- dinitrophenol 534521 10 5 -- --
3-methyl-4-chlorophenol 59507 5 1 -- --
N-nitrosodi-n- propylamine 621647 10 5 -- --
N-nitrosodimethylamine 62759 10 5 -- --
N-nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 10 1 -- --
Nitrobenzene 98953 10 1 -- --
2-Nitrophenol 88755 -- 10 -- --
4-Nitrophenol 100027 5 10 -- --
Pentachlorophenol 87865 1 5 -- --
Phenanthrene 85018 -- 5 0.05 --
Phenol 108952 1 1 -- 50
Pyrene 129000 -- 10 0.05 --
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062 10 10 -- --

Table II-2 Notes:

_____________________________

Table II-3

Minimum* Levels - Inorganics

Inorganic Substance s CAS Number Minimum * Level (µg/L): COLOR Method a Minimum * Level (µg/L): DCP Method b Minimum * Level (µg/L): FAA Method c Minimum * Level (µg/L): GFAA Method d Minimum * Level (µg/L): HYDRIDE Method e Minimum * Level (µg/L): ICP Method f Minimum * Level (µg/L): ICPMS Method g Minimum * Level (µg/L): SPGFAA Method h Minimum * Level (µg/L): CVAA Method i
Antimony 7440360 -- 1000. 10. 5. 0.5 50. 0.5 5. --
Arsenic 7440382 20. 1000. -- 2. 1. 10. 2. 2. --
Beryllium 7440417 -- 1000. 20. 0.5 -- 2. 0.5 1. --
Cadmium 7440439 -- 1000. 10. 0.5 -- 10. 0.2 0.5 --
Chromium (total) -- -- 1000. 50. 2. -- 10. 0.5 1. --
Chromium (VI) 1854029 9 10. -- 5. -- -- -- -- -- --
Copper 7440508 -- 1000. 20. 5. -- 10. 0.5 2. --
Cyanide 57125 5. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Lead 7439921 -- 10000. 20. 5. -- 5. 0.5 2. --
Mercury 7439976 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.5 -- 0.2
Nickel 7440020 -- 1000. 50. 5. -- 20. 1. 5. --
Selenium 7782492 -- 1000. -- 5. 1. 10. 2. 5. --
Silver 7440224 -- 1000. 10. 1. -- 10. 0.2 2. --
Thallium 7440280 -- 1000. 10. 2. -- 10. 1. 5. --
Zinc 7440666 -- 1000. 20. -- -- 20. 1. 10. --

Table II-3 Notes

_____________________________

_____________________________

Table II-4 Minimum Levels - Pesticides and PCBs

Pesticides - PCBs CAS Number Minimum* Level (µg/L): GC Method a, *
Aldrin 309002 0.005
Chlordane* 57749 0.1
4,4'-DDD 72548 0.05
4,4'-DDE 72559 0.05
4,4'-DDT 50293 0.01
Dieldrin 60571 0.01
a-Endosulfan 959988 0.02
b-Endosulfan 33213659 0.01
Endosulfan Sulfate 1031078 0.05
Endrin 72208 0.01
Heptachlor 76448 0.01
Heptachlor Epoxide 1024573 0.01
a-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319846 0.01
b-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319857 0.005
d-Hexachlorocyclohexane 319868 0.005
g-Hexachlorocyclohexane (Lindane) 58899 0.02
PCB 1016 -- 0.5
PCB 1221 -- 0.5
PCB 1232 -- 0.5
PCB 1242 -- 0.5
PCB 1248 -- 0.5
PCB 1254 -- 0.5
PCB 1260 -- 0.5
Toxaphene 8001352 0.5

Table II-4 Notes

_____________________________

APPENDIX III STANDARD MONITORING PROCEDURES

1. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this appendix is to provide guidance to the Regional Water Boards on implementing the Ocean Plan and to ensure the reporting of useful information. Monitoring should be question driven rather than just gathering data and should be focused on assuring compliance with narrative and numeric water quality standards, the status and attainment of beneficial uses, and identifying sources of pollution.

It is not feasible to prescribe requirements in the Ocean Plan that encompass all circumstances and conditions that could be encountered by all dischargers, nor is it desirable to limit the flexibility of the Regional Water Boards in the monitoring of ocean* waters. This appendix should therefore be considered the basic framework for the design of an ocean discharger monitoring program. The Regional Water Boards are responsible for issuing monitoring and reporting programs (MRPs) that will implement this monitoring guidance. Regional Water Boards can deviate from the procedures required in the appendix only with the approval of the State Water Resources Control Board.

This monitoring guidance utilizes a model monitoring framework. The model monitoring framework has three components that comprise a range of spatial and temporal scales: (1) core monitoring, (2) regional monitoring, and (3) special studies.

_____________________________

The Ocean Plan does not address all site-specific monitoring issues and allows the Regional Water Boards to select alternative protocols with the approval of the State Water Board. If no direction is given in this appendix for a specific provision of the Ocean Plan, it is within the discretion of the Regional Water Boards to establish the monitoring requirements for that provision.

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE

All receiving* and ambient water monitoring conducted in compliance with MRPs must be comparable with the Quality Assurance requirements of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP).

SWAMP comparable means all sample collection and analyses shall meet or exceed the measurement quality objectives (MQOs) - including all sample types, frequencies, control limits and holding time requirements - as specified in the SWAMP Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPrP)

The SWAMP QAPrP is located at:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/tools.shtml#qa.

For those measurements that do not have SWAMP MQOs available, then MQOs shall be at the discretion of the Regional Water Board. Refer to the USEPA guidance document (EPA QA/G-4) for selecting data quality objectives, Iocated at http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf.

Water Quality data must be reported according to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) 'Data Template' format for all constituents that are monitored in receiving and ambient water. CEDEN Data Template are available at: http://ceden.org.

3. TYPE OF WASTE DISCHARGE SOURCES

Discharges to ocean waters* are highly diverse and variable, exhibiting a wide range of constituents, effluent quality and quantity, location and frequency of discharge. Different types of discharges will require different approaches. This Appendix provides specific direction for three broad types of discharges: (1) Point Sources, (2) Storm Water Point Sources and (3) Non-point Sources.

3.1. Point Sources

Industrial, municipal, marine laboratory and other traditional point sources of pollution that discharge wastewater directly to surface waters and are required to obtain NPDES permits.

3.2. Storm Water Point Sources

Storm Water Point Sources, hereafter referred to as Storm Water Sources, are those NPDES permitted discharges regulated by Construction or Industrial Storm Water General Permits or municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4s) Permits. MS4

_____________________________

Permits are further divided into Phase I and II Permits. A Phase I MS4 Permit is issued by a Regional Water Board for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 or more people) municipalities. A Phase II MS4 General Permit is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board for the discharge of storm water for smaller municipalities, and includes nontraditional Small MS4s, which are governmental facilities such as military bases, public campuses, prison and hospital complexes.

3.3. Non-point Sources

A Non-point Source is any source of pollutants that is not a Point Source described in section 3.1 or a Storm Water Source as described in section 3.2. Land use categories contributing to non-point sources include but are not limited to:

Only agricultural and golf course related non-point source discharge monitoring is addressed in this Appendix, but Regional Water Boards may issue MRPs for other nonpoint sources at their discretion. Agriculture includes irrigated lands. Irrigated lands are where water is applied for the purpose of producing crops, including, but not limited to, row and field crop, orchards, vineyard, rice production, nurseries, irrigated pastures, and managed wetlands.

4. INDICATOR BACTERIA*

4.1. Point Sources

Primary questions to be addressed:

  1. Does the effluent comply with the water quality standards in the receiving water*?
  2. Does the sewage effluent reach water contact zones or commercial shellfish* beds?

To answer these questions, core monitoring shall be conducted in receiving water on the shoreline for the indicator bacteria at a minimum weekly for any point sources discharging treated sewage effluent:

_____________________________

Alternatively, these requirements may be met through participation in a regional monitoring program to assess the status of marine contact recreation water quality. If the permittee participates in a regional monitoring program, in conjunction with local health organization(s), core monitoring may be suspended for that period at the discretion of the Regional Water Board. Regional monitoring should be used to answer the above questions, and may be used to answer additional questions. These additional questions may include, but are not limited to, questions regarding the extent and magnitude of current or potential receiving water indicator bacteria problems, or the sources of indicator bacteria.*

4.2. Storm Water

Primary questions to be addressed:

  1. Does the receiving water* comply with water quality standards?
  2. Is the condition of the receiving water protective of contact recreation and shellfish harvesting beneficial uses?
  3. Are the indicator bacteria levels in receiving water getting better or worse?
  4. What is the relative contribution of indicator bacteria to the receiving water from storm water runoff?

To answer these questions, core monitoring for indicator bacteria shall be required periodically for storm water discharges representative of the area of concern. At a minimum, for municipal storm water discharges, all receiving water at outfalls greater than 36 inches in diameter or width must be monitored (ankle depth, point zero) at the following frequencies:

Regional Water Boards may waive monitoring once structural best management practices have been installed, evaluated and determined to have successfully controlled indicator bacteria.*

Alternatively, these requirements may be met through participation in a regional monitoring program to assess the status of marine contact recreation water quality. If the permittee participates in a regional monitoring program, in conjunction with local health organization(s), core monitoring may be suspended for that period at the discretion of the Regional Water Board. Regional monitoring should be used to answer

_____________________________

the above questions, and may be used to answer additional questions. These additional questions may include, but are not limited to, questions regarding the extent and magnitude of current or potential receiving water indicator bacteria problems, or the sources of indicator bacteria.*

4.3. Non-point Sources

Primary questions to be addressed:

  1. Does the receiving water* comply with water quality standards?
  2. Do agricultural and golf course non-point source discharges reach water contact or shellfish* harvesting zones?
  3. Are the indicator bacteria levels in receiving water getting better or worse?
  4. What is the relative contribution of indicator bacteria to the receiving water from agricultural and golf course non-point sources?

To answer these questions, core monitoring of representative agricultural irrigation tail water and storm water runoff, at a minimum, will be conducted in receiving water (ankle depth, point zero) for indicator bacteria:

Alternatively, these requirements may be met through participation in a regional monitoring program to assess the status of marine contact recreation water quality. If the discharger participates in a regional monitoring program, in conjunction with local health organization(s), core monitoring may be suspended for that period at the discretion of the Regional Water Board. Regional monitoring should be used to answer the above questions, and may be used to answer additional questions. These additional questions may include, but are not limited to, questions regarding the extent and magnitude of current or potential receiving water indicator bacteria problems, or the sources of indicator bacteria.*

5. CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS

5.1. Point Sources

Primary questions addressed:

  1. Does the effluent meet permit effluent limits thereby ensuring that water quality standards are achieved in the receiving water*?
  2. What is the mass of the constituents that are discharged annually?
  3. Is the effluent concentration or mass changing over time?

_____________________________

Consistent with Appendix VI, the core monitoring for the substances in Table 3 and Table 4 shall be required periodically. For discharges less than 10 MGD, the monitoring frequency shall be at least one complete scan of the Table 3 substances annually. Discharges greater than 10 MGD shall be required to monitor at least semiannually.

5.2. Storm Water

Primary questions addressed:

  1. Does the receiving water* meet the water quality standards?
  2. Are the conditions in receiving water* getting better or worse?
  3. What is the relative runoff contribution to pollution in the receiving water*?

For Phase I and Phase II MS4 dischargers, core receiving water monitoring will be required at a minimum for 10 percent of all outfalls greater than 36 inches in diameter or width once per year. If a discharger has less than five outfalls exceeding 36 inches in diameter or width, they shall conduct monitoring at a minimum of only once per outfall during a five year period. Monitoring shall be for total suspended solids, oil & grease, total organic carbon, pH, temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, Table 3 metals, PAHs, and pesticides determined by the Regional Water Boards. Regional Water Boards may waive monitoring once structural best management practices have been installed, evaluated and determined to have successfully controlled pollutants.

For industrial storm water discharges, runoff monitoring must be conducted at all outfalls at least two storm events per year. In addition, at least one representative receiving water sample must be collected per industrial storm water permittee during two storm events per year. Monitoring shall be conducted for total suspended solids, oil & grease, total organic carbon, pH, temperature, biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, and Table 3 metals and PAHs.

The requirements for individual core monitoring for Table 3 metals, PAHs and pesticides may be waived at the discretion of the Regional Water Board, if the permittee participates in a regional program for monitoring runoff and/or receiving water to answer the above questions as well as additional questions. Additional questions may include, but are not limited to, questions regarding the extent and magnitude of current or potential receiving water* problems from storm water runoff, or sources of any runoff pollutants.

5.3. Non-point Sources

The primary questions are:

  1. Does the agricultural or golf course runoff meet water quality standards in the receiving water*?

_____________________________

  1. Are nutrients present that would contribute to objectionable aquatic algal blooms or degrade* indigenous biota?
  2. Are the conditions in receiving water* getting better or worse?
  3. What is the relative agricultural runoff or golf course contribution to pollution in the receiving water*?

To answer these questions, a statistically representative sample (determined by the Regional Water Board) of receiving water* at the sites of agricultural irrigation tail water and storm water runoff, and golf course runoff in each watershed will be monitored for Ocean Plan Table 3 metals, ammonia as N, nitrate as N, phosphate as P, and pesticides determined by the Regional Board:

This requirement may be satisfied by core monitoring individually, or through participation in a regional program for monitoring runoff and receiving water* at the discretion of the Regional Water Board to answer the above questions as well as additional questions. Additional questions may include, but are not limited to, questions regarding the sources of agricultural pollutants.

6. SEDIMENT MONITORING

All Sources:

  1. Is the dissolved sulfide concentration of waters in sediments significantly* increased above that present under natural conditions?
  2. Is the concentration of substances set forth in Table 3, for protection of marine aquatic life, in marine sediments at levels which would degrade* the benthic community?
  3. Is the concentration of organic pollutants in marine sediments at levels that would degrade* the benthic community?

6.1. Point Sources

For discharges greater than 10 MGD, acid volatile sulfides, OP Pesticides, Table 3 metals, ammonia N, PAHs,* and chlorinated hydrocarbons will be measured in sediments annually in a core monitoring program approved by the Regional Water Board. Sediment sample locations will be determined by the Regional Water Board. If sufficient data exists from previous water column monitoring for these parameters, the Regional Water Board at its discretion may reduce the frequency of monitoring, or may allow this requirement to be satisfied through participation in a regional monitoring program.

_____________________________

6.2. Storm Water

For Phase I MS4 permittees, discharges greater than 72 inches in diameter or width discharging to low energy coastal environments with the likelihood of sediment deposition, acid volatile sulfides, OP Pesticides, Ocean Plan Table 3 metals, ammonia N, PAHs,* and chlorinated hydrocarbons will be measured in sediments once per permit cycle.

Regional Water Boards may waive monitoring once structural best management practices have been installed, evaluated and determined to have successfully controlled pollutants.

This requirement may be satisfied by core monitoring individually or through participation in a regional monitoring program at the discretion of the Regional Water Board. Sediment sample locations will be determined by the Regional Water Board.

7. AQUATIC LIFE TOXICITY

Toxicity tests are another method used to assess risk to aquatic life. These tests assess the overall toxicity of the effluent, including the toxicity of unmeasured constituents and/or synergistic effects of multiple constituents.

7.1. Point Sources

  1. Does the effluent meet permit effluent limits for toxicity thereby ensuring that water quality standards are achieved in the receiving water*?
  2. If not:
  3. a. Are unmeasured pollutants causing risk to aquatic life?
  4. b. Are pollutants in combinations causing risk to aquatic life?

Core monitoring for Table 3 effluent toxicity shall be required periodically. For discharges less than 0.1 MGD the monitoring frequency for acute and/or chronic toxicity shall be twice per permit cycle. For discharges between 0.1 and 10 MGD, the monitoring frequency for acute and/or chronic toxicity of the effluent should be at least annually. For discharges greater than 10 MGD, the monitoring frequency for acute and/or chronic toxicity* of the effluent should be at least semiannually.

For discharges greater than 10 MGD in a low energy coastal environment with the likelihood of sediment deposition, Core monitoring for acute sediment toxicity is required and will utilize alternative amphipod species ( Eohaustorius estuarius, Leptocheirus plumulosus, Rhepoxynius abronius ).

If an exceedance is detected, six additional toxicity tests are required within a 12-week period. If an additional exceedance is detected within the 12-week period, a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) is required, consistent with chapter III.C.10 that requires a

_____________________________

TRE if a discharge consistently exceeds an effluent limitation based on a toxicity objective in Table 3.

7.2. Storm Water

  1. Does the runoff meet objectives for toxicity in the receiving water*?
  2. Are the conditions in receiving water* getting better or worse with regard to toxicity
  3. What is the relative runoff contribution to the receiving water* toxicity?
  4. What are the causes of the toxicity and the sources of the constituents responsible?

For Phase I MS4, Phase II MS4, and industrial storm water discharges, core toxicity monitoring will be required at a minimum for 10 percent of all outfalls greater than 36 inches in diameter or width at a minimum of once per year. Receiving water monitoring shall be for Table 3 critical life stage chronic toxicity for a minimum of one invertebrate species.

For storm water discharges greater than 72 inches in diameter or width in a low energy coastal environment with the likelihood of sediment deposition, core sediment monitoring for acute sediment toxicity is required and will utilize alternative amphipod species ( Eohaustorius estuarius, Leptocheirus plumulosus, Rhepoxynius abronius ).

Regional Water Boards may waive monitoring once structural best management practices have been installed, evaluated and determined to have successfully controlled toxicity.

If an exceedence is detected, an additional toxicity test is required during the subsequent storm event. If an additional exceedance is detected at that time, a TRE is required, consistent with chapter III.C.10 that requires a TRE if a discharge consistently exceeds an effluent limitation based on a toxicity objective in Table 3. A sufficient volume must be collected to conduct a TIE, if necessary, as a part of a TRE.

The requirement for core toxicity monitoring may be waived at the discretion of the Regional Water Board, if the permittee participates in a regional monitoring program to answer the above questions, as well as any other additional questions that may be developed by the regional monitoring program.

7.3. Non-point Sources

  1. Does the agricultural and golf course runoff meet water quality standards for toxicity in the receiving water*?
  2. Are the conditions in receiving water* getting better or worse with regard to toxicity?

_____________________________

  1. What is the relative agricultural and golf course runoff contribution to receiving water* toxicity?
  2. What are the causes of the toxicity, and the sources of the constituents responsible?

To answer these questions, a statistically representative sample (determined by the Regional Water Board) of receiving water* at the sites of agricultural irrigation tail water and storm water runoff, and golf course runoff, in each watershed will be monitored:

Core receiving water monitoring shall include Table 3 critical life stage chronic toxicity for a minimum of one invertebrate species.

For runoff in a low energy coastal environment with the likelihood of sediment deposition, core sediment monitoring shall include acute sediment toxicity utilizing alternative amphipod species ( Eohaustorius estuarius, Leptocheirus plumulosus, Rhepoxynius abronius ) at a minimum once per year.

If an exceedence is detected, an additional toxicity test is required during the subsequent storm event. If an additional exceedance is detected, a TRE is required, consistent with chapter III.C.10 that requires a TRE if a discharge consistently exceeds an effluent limitation based on a toxicity objective in Table 3. A sufficient volume must be collected to conduct a TIE, if necessary, as a part of a TRE.

The requirement for core monitoring may be waived at the discretion of the Regional Water Board, if the permittee participates in a regional monitoring program to answer the above questions, as well as any other additional questions that may be developed by the regional monitoring program.

8. BENTHIC COMMUNITY HEALTH

8.1. Point Sources

  1. Are benthic communities degraded* as a result of the discharge?

To answer this question, benthic community monitoring shall be conducted

_____________________________

The minimum frequency shall be once per permit cycle, except for discharges greater than 100 MGD the minimum frequency shall be at least twice per permit cycle.

This requirement may be satisfied by core monitoring individually or through participation in a regional monitoring program at the discretion of the Regional Board.

9. BIOACCUMULATION

9.1. Point Sources

  1. Does the concentration of pollutants in fish, shellfish,* or other marine resources used for human consumption bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health?
  2. Does the concentration of pollutants in marine life bioaccumulate to levels that degrade* marine communities?

To answer these questions, bioaccumulation monitoring shall be conducted, at a minimum, once per permit cycle for:

Constituents to be monitored must include pesticides (at the discretion of the Regional Board), Table 3 metals, and PAHs.* Bioaccumulation may be monitored by a mussel watch program or a fish tissue program. Resident mussels are preferred over transplanted mussels. Sand crabs and/or fish may be added or substituted for mussels at the discretion of the Regional Water Board.

This requirement may be satisfied individually as core monitoring or through participation in a regional monitoring program at the discretion of the Regional Water Board.

9.2. Storm Water

  1. Does the concentration of pollutants in fish, shellfish,* or other marine resources used for human consumption bioaccumulate to levels that are harmful to human health?
  2. Does the concentration of pollutants in marine life bioaccumulate to levels that degrade* marine communities?

For Phase I MS4 dischargers, bioaccumulation monitoring shall be conducted, at a minimum, once per permit cycle. Constituents to be monitored must include OP

_____________________________

Pesticides, Ocean Plan Table 3 metals, Table 3 PAHs,* Table 3 chlorinated hydrocarbons, and pyrethroids. Bioaccumulation may be monitored by a mussel watch program or a fish tissue program. Sand crabs, fish, and/or Solid Phase Microextraction may be added or substituted for mussels at the discretion of the Regional Water Board.

This requirement may be satisfied individually as core monitoring or through participation in a regional monitoring program at the discretion of the Regional Water Board.

10. RECEIVING WATER* CHARACTERISTICS All Sources:

  1. Is natural light significantly reduced at any point outside the zone of initial dilution as the result of the discharge of waste?
  2. Does the discharge of waste* cause a discoloration of the ocean surface?
  3. Does the discharge of oxygen demanding waste cause the dissolved oxygen concentration to be depressed at any time more than 10 percent from that which occurs naturally, as the result of the discharge of oxygen demanding waste materials?
  4. Does the discharge of waste* cause the pH to change at any time more than 0.2 units from that which occurs naturally?
  5. Does the discharge of waste cause the salinity to become elevated in the receiving water*?
  6. Do nutrients cause objectionable aquatic growth or degrade* indigenous biota?

10.1. Point Sources

For discharges greater than 10 MGD, turbidity (alternatively light transmissivity or surface water transparency), color [Chlorophyll-A and/or color dissolved organic matter (CDOM)], dissolved oxygen and pH shall be measured in the receiving water* seasonally, at a minimum, in a core monitoring program approved by the Regional Water Board. If sufficient data exists from previous water column monitoring for these parameters, the Regional Water Board, at its discretion, may reduce the frequency of water column monitoring, or may allow this requirement to be satisfied through participation in a regional monitoring program. Use of regional ocean observing programs, such as the Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System (SCCOOS) and the Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System (CeNCCOOS) is encouraged.

Salinity must also be monitored by all point sources discharging brine as part of their core monitoring program. Seawater desalination facilities discharging brine into ocean waters* and wastewater facilities that receive brine from seawater desalination facilities and discharge into ocean waters shall monitor salinity as described in chapter III.M.4.

_____________________________

10.2. Storm Water

At a minimum, 10 percent of Phase I MS4 discharges greater than 36 inches, receiving water* turbidity, color, dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrate, phosphate, and ammonia shall be measured annually in a core monitoring program approved by the Regional Water Board.

Regional Water Boards may waive monitoring once structural best management practices have been installed, evaluated and determined to have successfully controlled pollutants. The Regional Water Board, at its discretion, may also allow this requirement to be satisfied through participation in a regional monitoring program.

10.3. Non-point Sources

Representative agricultural and golf course discharges shall be measured, at a minimum twice annually (during two storm season and irrigation season) for receiving water* turbidity, color, dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrate, phosphate, ammonia in a core monitoring program approved by the Regional Water Board. The Regional Water Board, at its discretion, may allow this requirement to be satisfied through participation in a regional monitoring program.

11. ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS

Procedures, calibration techniques, and instrument/reagent specifications shall conform to the requirements of 40 CFR PART 136. Compliance monitoring shall be determined using an US EPA approved protocol as provided in 40 CFR PART 136. All methods shall be specified in the monitoring requirement section of waste* discharge requirements.

Where methods are not available in 40 CFR PART 136, the Regional Water Boards shall specify suitable analytical methods in waste* discharge requirements. Acceptance of data should be predicated on demonstrated laboratory performance.

Laboratories analyzing monitoring data shall be certified by the California Department of Public Health, in accordance with the provisions of Water Code section 13176, and must include quality assurance quality control data with their reports.

Sample dilutions for total and fecal coliform bacterial analyses shall range from 2 to 16,000. Sample dilutions for enterococcus bacterial analyses shall range from 1 to 10,000 per 100 mL. Each test method number or name (e.g., EPA 600/4-85/076, Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Water by Membrane Filter Procedure) used for each analysis shall be specified and reported with the results.

Test methods used for coliforms (total and fecal) shall be those presented in Table 1A of 40 CFR PART 136, unless alternate methods have been approved in advance by U.S. EPA pursuant to 40 CFR PART 136.

_____________________________

Test methods used for enterococcus shall be those presented in U.S. EPA publication EPA 600/4-85/076, Test Methods for Escherichia coli and Enterococci in Water by Membrane Filter Procedure or any improved method determined by the Regional Board to be appropriate. The Regional Water Board may allow analysis for Escherichia coli ( E. coli) by approved test methods to be substituted for fecal coliforms if sufficient information exists to support comparability with approved methods and substitute the existing methods.

The State or Regional Water Board may, subject to U.S. EPA approval, specify test methods which are more sensitive than those specified in 40 CFR PART 136. Because storm water and non-point sources are not assigned a dilution factor, sufficient sampling and analysis shall be required to determine compliance with Table 3 Water Quality Objectives. Total chlorine residual is likely to be a method detection limit effluent limitation in many cases. The limit of detection of total chlorine residual in standard test methods is less than or equal to 20 µg/L.

Toxicity monitoring requirements in permits prepared by the Regional Water Boards shall use marine test species instead of freshwater species when measuring compliance. The Regional Water Board shall require the use of critical life stage toxicity tests specified in this Appendix to measure TUc. For Point Sources, a minimum of three test species with approved test protocols shall be used to measure compliance with the toxicity objective. If possible, the test species shall include a fish, an invertebrate, and an aquatic plant. After a screening period, monitoring can be reduced to the most sensitive species.

Dilution and control water should be obtained from an unaffected area of the receiving waters.* The sensitivity of the test organisms to a reference toxicant shall be determined concurrently with each bioassay test and reported with the test results.

Use of critical life stage bioassay testing shall be included in waste* discharge requirements as a monitoring requirement for all Point Source discharges greater than 100 MGD

Procedures and methods used to determine compliance with benthic monitoring should use the following federal guidelines when applicable: Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters (1990) -EPA/600/4-90/030 (PB91-171363). This manual describes guidelines and standardized procedures for the use of macroinvertebrates in evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters.

Procedures used to determine compliance with bioaccumulation monitoring should use the U.S. EPA Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories (November 2000, EPA 823-B-00-007), NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 130, Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program Mussel Watch Project (1998 update), and/or State Mussel Watch Program, 1987-1993 Data Report, State Water Resources Control Board 94-1WQ.

_____________________________

Table III-1

Approved Tests - Chronic Toxicity* (TUc)

Species Effect Tier Reference
giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera percent germination; germ tube length 1 1,3
red abalone, Haliotis rufescens Abnormal shell development 1 1,3
oyster, Crassostrea gigas; mussels, Mytilus spp. Abnormal shell development; percent survival 1 1,3
urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus; sand dollar, Dendraster excentricus Percent normal development 1 1,3
urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus; sand dollar, Dendraster excentricus Percent fertilization 1 1,3
shrimp, Holmesimysis costata Percent survival; growth 1 1,3
shrimp, Mysidopsis bahia Percent survival; growth; fecundity 2 2,4
topsmelt, Atherinops affinis Larval growth rate; percent survival 1 1,3
Silversides, Menidia beryllina Larval growth rate; percent survival 2 2,4

Table III-1 Notes

The first tier test methods are the preferred toxicity tests for compliance monitoring. A Regional Water Board can approve the use of a second tier test method for waste* discharges if first tier organisms are not available.

Protocol References

  1. Chapman, G.A., D.L. Denton, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1995. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to west coast marine and estuarine organisms. U.S. EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-95/136.
  2. Klemm, D.J., G.E. Morrison, T.J. Norberg-King, W.J. Peltier, and M.A. Heber. 1994. Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving water to marine and estuarine organisms. U.S. EPA Report No. EPA-600-4-91-003.
  3. SWRCB 1996. Procedures Manual for Conducting Toxicity Tests Developed by the Marine Bioassay Project. 96-1WQ.
  4. Weber, C.I., W.B. Horning, I.I., D.J. Klemm, T.W. Nieheisel, P.A. Lewis, E.L. Robinson, J. Menkedick and F. Kessler (eds). 1988. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. EPA/600/4-87/028. National Information Service, Springfield, VA.

_____________________________

APPENDIX IV PROCEDURES FOR THE NOMINATION AND DESIGNATION OF STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS.*

  1. Any person may nominate areas of ocean* waters for designation as SWQPA-ASBS or SWQPA-GP by the State Water Board. Nominations shall be made to the appropriate Regional Water Board and shall include:
  2. (a) Information such as maps, reports, data, statements, and photographs to show that:
  3. (1) Candidate areas are located in ocean* waters as defined in the 'Ocean Plan'.
  4. (2) Candidate areas are intrinsically valuable or have recognized value to man for scientific study, commercial use, recreational use, or esthetic reasons.
  5. (3) Candidate areas need protection beyond that offered by waste* discharge restrictions or other administrative and statutory mechanisms.
  6. (b) Data and information to indicate whether the proposed designation may have a significant* effect on the environment.
  7. (1) If the data or information indicate that the proposed designation will have a significant effect on the environment, the nominee must submit sufficient information and data to identify feasible changes in the designation that will mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects.
  8. The State Water Board or a Regional Water Board may also nominate areas for designation as SWQPA-ASBS or SWQPA-GP on their own motion.
  9. A Regional Water Board may decide to (a) consider individual SWQPA-ASBS or SWQPA-GP nominations upon receipt, (b) consider several nominations in a consolidated proceeding, or (c) consider nominations in the triennial review of its water quality control plan (basin plan). A nomination that meets the requirements of 1. above may be considered at any time but not later than the next scheduled triennial review of the appropriate basin plan or Ocean Plan.
  10. After determining that a nomination meets the requirements of paragraph 1. above, the Executive Officer of the affected Regional Water Board shall prepare a Draft Nomination Report containing the following:
  11. (a) The area or areas nominated for designation as SWQPA-ASBS or SWQPA-GP.
  12. (b) A description of each area including a map delineating the boundaries of each proposed area.
  13. (c) A recommendation for action on the nomination(s) and the rationale for the recommendation. If the Draft Nomination Report recommends approval of the proposed designation, the Draft Nomination Report shall comply with the CEQA

_____________________________

documentation requirements for a water quality control plan amendment in section 3777, title 23, California Code of Regulations.

  1. The Executive Officer shall, at a minimum, seek informal comment on the Draft Nomination Report from the State Water Board, Department of Fish and Game, other interested state and federal agencies, conservation groups, affected waste dischargers, and other interested parties. Upon incorporation of responses from the consulted agencies, the Draft Nomination Report shall become the Final Nomination Report.
  2. (a) If the Final Nomination Report recommends approval of the proposed designation, the Executive Officer shall ensure that processing of the nomination complies with the CEQA consultation requirements in section 3778, Title 23, California Code of Regulations and proceed to step 7 below.
  3. (b) If the Final Nomination Report recommends against approval of the proposed designation, the Executive Officer shall notify interested parties of the decision. No further action need be taken. The nominating party may seek reconsideration of the decision by the Regional Water Board itself.
  4. The Regional Water Board shall conduct a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed designation. Notice of the hearing shall be published three times in a newspaper of general circulation in the vicinity of the proposed area or areas and shall be distributed to all known interested parties 45 days in advance of the hearing. The notice shall describe the location, boundaries, and extent of the area or areas under consideration, as well as proposed restrictions on waste* discharges within the area.
  5. The Regional Water Board shall respond to comments as required in section 3779, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, and 40 C.F.R. Part 25 (July 1, 1999).
  6. The Regional Water Board shall consider the nomination after completing the required public review processes required by CEQA.
  7. (a) If the Regional Water Board supports the recommendation for designation, the board shall forward to the State Water Board its recommendation for approving designation of the proposed area or areas and the supporting rationale. The Regional Water Board submittal shall include a copy of the staff report, hearing transcript, comments, and responses to comments.
  8. (b) If the Regional Water Board does not support the recommendation for designation, the Executive Officer shall notify interested parties of the decision, and no further action need be taken.
  9. After considering the Regional Water Board recommendation and hearing record, the State Water Board may approve or deny the recommendation, refer the matter to the Regional Water Board for appropriate action, or conduct further hearing itself. If

_____________________________

the State Water Board acts to approve a recommended designation, the State Water Board shall amend Appendix V, Table V-1, of this Plan. The amendment will go into effect after approval by the Office of Administrative Law and US EPA. In addition, after the effective date of a designation, the affected Regional Water Board shall revise its water quality control plan in the next triennial review to include the designation.

  1. The State Water Board Executive Director shall advise other agencies to whom the list of designated areas is to be provided that the basis for an SWQPA-ASBS or SWQPA-GP designation is limited to protection of marine life from waste* discharges.

_____________________________

APPENDIX V STATE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AREAS AREAS OF SPECIAL BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Table V-1 State Water Quality Protection Areas Areas of Special Biological Significance

(Designated or Approved by the State Water Resources Control Board)

No. ASBS Name Date Designated State Water Board Resolution No. Region No.
1 Jughandle Cove March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
2 Del Mar Landing March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
3 Gerstle Cove March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
4 Bodega March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
5 Saunders Reef March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
6 Trinidad Head March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
7 King Range March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
8 Redwoods National Park March 21, 1974, 74-28 1
9 James V. Fitzgerald March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
10 Farallon Islands March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
11 Duxbury Reef March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
12 Point Reyes Headlands March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
13 Double Point March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
14 Bird Rock March 21, 1974, 74-28 2
15 Año Nuevo March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
16 Point Lobos March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
17 San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz Islands March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
18 Julia Pfeiffer Burns March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
19 Pacific Grove March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
20 Salmon Creek Coast March 21, 1974, 74-28 3
21 San Nicolas Island and Begg Rock March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
22 Santa Barbara and Anacapa Islands March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
23 San Clemente Island March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
24 Laguna Point to Latigo Point March 21, 1974, 74-28 4

_____________________________

No. ASBS Name Date Designated State Water Board Resolution No. Region No.
25 Northwest Santa Catalina Island March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
26 Western Santa Catalina Island March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
27 Farnsworth Bank March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
28 Southeast Santa Catalina March 21, 1974, 74-28 4
29 La Jolla March 21, 1974, 74-28 9
30 Heisler Park March 21, 1974, 74-28 9
31 San Diego-Scripps March 21, 1974, 74-28 9
32 Robert E. Badham April 18, 1974 74-32 8
33 Irvine Coast April 18, 1974 74-32 8,9
34 Carmel Bay June 19, 1975 75-61 3

_____________________________

REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHICH

APPENDIX VI TABLE 3 OBJECTIVES REQUIRE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

In determining the need for an effluent limitation, the Regional Water Board shall use all representative information to characterize the pollutant discharge using a scientifically defensible statistical method that accounts for the averaging period of the water quality objective, accounts for and captures the long-term variability of the pollutant in the effluent, accounts for limitations associated with sparse data sets, accounts for uncertainty associated with censored data sets, and (unless otherwise demonstrated) assumes a lognormal distribution of the facility-specific effluent data.

The purpose of the following procedure (see also Figure VI-1) is to provide direction to the Regional Water Boards for determining if a pollutant discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above Table 3 water quality objectives in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(1)(iii). The Regional Water Board may use an alternative approach for assessing reasonable potential such as an appropriate stochastic dilution model that incorporates both ambient and effluent variability. The permit fact sheet or statement of basis will document the justification or basis for the conclusions of the reasonable potential assessment. This appendix does not apply to permits or any portion of a permit where the discharge is regulated through best management practices (BMP) unless such discharge is also subject to numeric effluent limitations.

Step 1 : Identify Co, the applicable water quality objective from Table 3 for the pollutant.

Step 2 : Does information about the receiving water* body or the discharge support a reasonable potential assessment (RPA) without characterizing facility-specific effluent monitoring data? If yes, go to Step 13 to conduct an RPA based on best professional judgment (BPJ). Otherwise, proceed to Step 3 .

Step 3 : Is facility-specific effluent monitoring data available? If yes, proceed to Step 4. Otherwise, go to Step 13.

Step 4 : Adjust all effluent monitoring data Ce, including censored (ND or DNQ) values to the concentration X expected after complete mixing. For Table 3 pollutants use X = (Ce + Dm Cs) / (Dm + 1); for acute toxicity use X = Ce / (0.1 Dm + 1); where Dm is the minimum probable initial dilution expressed as parts seawater per part wastewater and Cs is the background seawater concentration from Table 5. For ND values, Ce is replaced with '<MDL;' for DNQ values Ce is replaced with '<ML.' Go to Step 5 .

Step 5 : Count the total number of samples n , the number of censored (ND or DNQ) values, c and the number of detected values, d, such that n = c + d .

_____________________________

Is any detected pollutant concentration after complete mixing greater than Co? If yes, the discharge causes an excursion of Co; go to Endpoint 1 . Otherwise, proceed to Step 6 .

Step 6 : Does the effluent monitoring data contain three or more detected observations ( d > 3)? If yes, proceed to Step 7 to conduct a parametric RPA. Otherwise, go to Step11 to conduct a nonparametric RPA.

Step 7 : Conduct a parametric RPA. Assume data are lognormally distributed, unless otherwise demonstrated. Does the data consist entirely of detected values ( c / n = 0)? If yes,

Otherwise, proceed to Step 8 .

Step 8 : Is the data censored by 80% or less ( c / n < 0.8)? If yes,

Otherwise, go to Step 11.

Step 9 : Calculate the UCB i.e., the one-sided, upper 95 percent confidence bound for the 95 th percentile of the effluent distribution after complete mixing. For lognormal distributions, use UCBL(.95,.95) = exp(ML + SL g'(.95,.95 ,n )), where g' is a normal tolerance factor obtained from the table below (Table VI-1). Proceed to Step 10 .

Step 10 : Is the UCB greater than Co? If yes, the discharge has a reasonable potential to cause an excursion of Co; go to Endpoint 1 . Otherwise, the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause an excursion of Co; go to Endpoint 2 .

Step 11 : Conduct a non-parametric RPA. Compare each data value X to Co. Reduce the sample size n by 1 for each tie (i.e., inconclusive censored value result) present. An adjusted ND value having Co < MDL is a tie. An adjusted DNQ value having Co < ML is also a tie.

Step 12 : Is the adjusted n > 15? If yes, the discharge has no reasonable potential to cause an excursion of Co; go to Endpoint 2 . Otherwise, go to Endpoint 3 .

Step 13 : Conduct an RPA based on BPJ. Review all available information to determine if a water quality-based effluent limitation is required, notwithstanding the above analysis in Steps 1 through 12 , to protect beneficial uses. Information that may be used includes: the facility type, the discharge type, solids loading analysis, lack of dilution,

_____________________________

history of compliance problems, potential toxic impact of discharge, fish tissue residue data, water quality and beneficial uses of the receiving water,* CWA 303(d) listing for the pollutant, the presence of endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, and other information.

Is data or other information unavailable or insufficient to determine if a water qualitybased effluent limitation is required? If yes, go to Endpoint 3. Otherwise, go to either Endpoint 1 or Endpoint 2 based on BPJ.

Endpoint 1 : An effluent limitation must be developed for the pollutant. Effluent monitoring for the pollutant, consistent with the monitoring frequency in Appendix III, is required.

Endpoint 2 : An effluent limitation is not required for the pollutant. Appendix III effluent monitoring is not required for the pollutant; the Regional Board, however, may require occasional monitoring for the pollutant or for whole effluent toxicity as appropriate.

Endpoint 3 : The RPA is inconclusive. Monitoring for the pollutant or whole effluent toxicity testing, consistent with the monitoring frequency in Appendix III, is required. An existing effluent limitation for the pollutant shall remain in the permit, otherwise the permit shall include a reopener clause to allow for subsequent modification of the permit to include an effluent limitation if the monitoring establishes that the discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an excursion above a Table 3 water quality objective.

Appendix VI References:

Helsel D. R. and T. A. Cohn. 1988. Estimation of descriptive statistics for multiply censored water quality data. Water Resources Research, Vol 24(12):1977-2004.

Hahn J. H. and W. Q. Meeker. 1991. Statistical Intervals, A guide for practitioners. J. Wiley & Sons, NY.

_____________________________

Table VI-1: Tolerance Factors for calculating normal distribution one-side upper 95 percent tolerance bounds for the 95 th percentile (Hahn & Meeker 1991)

n
2 26.26
3 7.656
4 5.144
5 4.203
6 3.708
7 3.399
8 3.187
9 3.031
10 2.911
11 2.815
12 2.736
13 2.671
14 2.614
15 2.566
16 2.524
17 2.486
18 2.453
19 2.423
20 2.396
21 2.371
22 2.349
23 2.328
24 2.309
25 2.292
26 2.275
27 2.26
28 2.246
29 2.232
30 2.22
35 2.167
40 2.125
50 2.065
60 2.022
120 1.899
240 1.819
480 1.766
∞ 1.645

_____________________________

Figure VI-1. Reasonable potential analysis flow chart

_____________________________

APPENDIX VII EXCEPTIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN

Table VII-1

Exceptions to the Ocean Plan

(GRANTED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD)

Year Resolution Applicable Provision Discharger
1977 77-11 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #23 US Navy San Clemente Island
1979 79-16 Discharge Prohibition for wet weather discharges from combined storm and wastewater collection system. The City and County of San Francisco
1983 83-78 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #7 Humboldt County Resort Improvement District No.1
1984 84-78 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #34 Carmel Sanitary District
1988 88-80 Total Chlorine Residual Limitation Haynes Power Plant Harbor Power Plant Scattergood Power Plant Alamitos Power Plant El Segundo Power Plant Long Beach Power Plant Mandalay Power Plant Ormond Beach Power Plant Redondo Power Plant
1990 90-105 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #21 US Navy San Nicolas Island
2004 2004-0052 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #31 UC Scripps Institution of Oceanography
2006 2006-0013 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #25 USC Wrigley Marine Science Center
2007 2007-0058 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #4 UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory
2011 2011-0049 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #6 HSU Telonicher Marine lab
2011 2011-0050 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #19 Monterey Bay Aquarium
2011 2011-0051 Discharge Prohibition, ASBS #19 Stanford Hopkins Marine Station
2012 2012-0012, as amended on June 19 2012; in 2012-0031 ASBS Discharge Prohibition, General Exception for Storm Water and Nonpoint Sources 27 applicants for the General Exception

_____________________________

APPENDIX VIII MAPS OF THE OCEAN, COAST, AND ISLANDS

Figure VIII-1. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in northern Region 1.

_____________________________

Figure VIII-2. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Region 1 and Region 2.

_____________________________

Figure VIII-3. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in northern Region 3.

_____________________________

Figure VIII-4. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Region 3 and northern Channel Islands.

_____________________________

Figure VIII-5. ASBS Boundaries, MPA Boundaries, Wastewater Outfall Points, Marine Sanctuary Boundaries, and Enclosed Bays in southern Channel Islands and Regions 4, 8 and 9.

_____________________________