CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION PLANS (continued)4.14 URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENTDuring periods of rain, water flushes sediment and pollutants from urbanized parts of the Estuary (Figure 4-3) into storm drain systems. These drains discharge directly to surface waters within the region, except in San Francisco where stormwater is mixed with sewage and directed to the treatment plant. Urban runoff contributes significant quantities of total suspended solids, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and other pollutants to the waters of the region. The impacts of pollutants in urban runoff on aquatic systems are many and varied. For example, small soil particles washed into streams can smother spawning grounds and marsh habitat. Lead and petroleum hydrocarbons washed off from roadways and parking lots may cause toxic responses in aquatic life and exemplify another kind of threat. The US EPA found levels of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in urban runoff exceeded freshwater acute aquatic life criteria in 9 to 50 percent of samples taken across the country. The chronic criteria for these metals, beryllium, cyanide, mercury, and silver were exceeded in at least 10 percent of the samples. In the San Francisco Bay Region, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has found consistently high levels of hydrocarbons in urban runoff. The Water Board's urban runoff management program focuses on reducing pollutant transport through stormwater drain systems into surface waters. In general, measures that will effectively limit storm drain pollutant discharge will also limit direct runoff of pollutants into creeks, streams, and lakes. The program is structured around the municipalities and local agencies responsible for maintaining storm drain systems, and three classes of activities that are responsible for significant amounts of pollutant influx to those public storm drain systems: highways under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), industrial activities, and construction on areas larger than 5 acres. Within each of these program areas, the Water Board's urban runoff management approach emphasizes general, long-term planning to avoid any increases in pollutant loading, and more structured, intensive approaches when existing water quality problems require immediate action. A large part of the Water Board's work in managing urban runoff involves supporting local planning and investigation. The program includes:
4.14.1 MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTANT DISCHARGE FROM STORM DRAINSThe Water Board's strategy for managing pollutants and sediment in urban runoff entering and being discharged public storm drain systems is two-tiered. All cities and counties are encouraged to develop and implement voluntary programs aimed at pollution prevention throughout the region (Baseline Control Program). Selected cites and counties, by virtue of the amount of pollutants being discharged from their storm drain system, impact of those discharges on receiving waters, or population, are required to develop pollution prevention programs and take steps to reduce runoff into drain systems (Comprehensive Control Program). The first major step in addressing pollutant loading to public storm drains was to compile basic information on existing systems. A Board survey of local agencies owning or responsible for storm drain systems and flood control agencies had limited and often dated information on the storm drain systems that they own or manage. In addition, flow and water quality data for storm drain system discharge were virtually nonexistent. The survey also found that current management of storm drain systems is primarily focused on flood control, with storm drainage inlets, lines, and catch basins scheduled for cleaning annually or on an as-needed basis for flood prevention purposes. 4.14.1.1 BASELINE CONTROL PROGRAMAll local agencies, including special districts, in the cities and counties in the region (see Table 4-11) that own or have maintenance responsibility for storm drain systems should develop and implement a baseline control program. The goal of the baseline control programs is to prevent any increase in pollutants entering these systems. To a large extent, this goal can be achieved by including consideration of pollutant runoff into storm drain systems in the course of local planning efforts and encouraging "good practice" techniques. Components of baseline control programs should include: review and update of operation and maintenance programs for storm drain systems; development and adoption of ordinances or other planning procedures (such as CEQA review) to avoid and control pollutant and sediment loading to runoff as part of the normal design and construction of new and significant redevelopment (both during construction and after construction is completed); and education measures to inform the public, commercial entities, and industries on the proper use and disposal of materials and waste and correct practices of urban runoff control. Baseline control programs should also include surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities to ensure and document implementation. Similarly, flood control agencies should consider the impact of their projects on receiving waters. Flood management projects, facilities, or operations should be designed, operated, and maintained to reduce the amount of pollutants in stormwater discharges as well as achieving flood control objectives. The Water Board will support and encourage the development and implementation of baseline control programs in cooperation with cities and counties. Board staff may provide technical guidance and support, facilitate ad-hoc working groups including people with expertise and experience in POTW pollution prevention programs and local hazardous waste management, and participate in development of model ordinances. The programs should be coordinated with POTW and industrial pollution prevention programs and local hazardous materials management programs. In addition, the Water Board will focus its surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities on and review Environmental Impact Reports on new development and significant redevelopment and focus its surveillance, monitoring, and enforcement activities to support implementation of effective baseline control programs. The effectiveness of a municipality's baseline control program will also be considered when issuing NPDES permits for construction activities pursuant to the Water Board's Construction Activity Control Program. The Water Board requires the local agencies, special districts, and municipalities listed in Table 4-11 to submit annual reports (pursuant to Section 13225(c) of the California Water Code) describing their baseline control programs. These reports are due on September 1 of each year and should describe:
To the extent that voluntary implementation of baseline control programs is not realized, the Water Board will act, where necessary, to require individual local agencies to investigate specific runoff discharges, quantify pollutant loads, and identify and implement control strategies for pollutant runoff into storm drains. Where necessary, require individual local agencies to file a Report of Waste Discharge or NPDES permit application for the implementation of baseline control programs. Cities and counties should review and revise their planning procedures and develop or revise comprehensive master plans to assure that increases in pollutant loading associated with newly developed and significantly redeveloped areas are, to the maximum extent practicable, limited. Areas that are in the process of development, or redevelopment offer the greatest potential for utilizing the full range of structural and non-structural control measures to limit increases in pollutant loads. Comprehensive planning must be used to incorporate these measures in the process of developing. Cities and counties should fully utilize their authority under CEQA to assure implementation of control measures at all proposed development and significant redevelopment projects. 4.14.1.2 COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL PROGRAMThe goal of the Water Board's comprehensive control program is to remediate existing water quality problems and prevent new problems associated with urban runoff. To achieve this, the program focuses on reducing current levels of pollutant loading to storm drains to the maximum extent practicable. The Water Board's comprehensive program is designed to be consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR 122-124) and is implemented by issuing NPDES permits to owners and operators of large storm drain systems and systems discharging significant amounts of pollutants. The conditions of each NPDES stormwater permit require that entities responsible for the systems develop and implement comprehensive control programs. The regulations authorize the issuance of system-wide or jurisdiction-wide permits and they effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges to storm drains. They also require listed municipalities to implement control measures to reduce pollutants in urban stormwater runoff discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The Water Board will, where necessary, require stormwater discharge permits for discharges not cited in the regulations which are a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the region. The comprehensive urban runoff control program includes all elements of the baseline control program designed to prevent increases in pollutant loading. To reduce current pollutant loading to the maximum extent practicable, the program also includes:
Each NPDES stormwater permit issued by the Water Board will require an annual report evaluating the effectiveness of its comprehensive urban runoff control program. At a minimum, quantitative monitoring, a detailed accounting of program accomplishments (including funds expended and staff hours utilized), an overall evaluation of the program, and plans and schedules for the upcoming year shall be used to assess effectiveness. The Water Board's urban runoff control program is still relatively new. Table 4-11 lists the entities in each area that have implemented comprehensive control programs. In addition, there is a need to develop and implement similar programs in the urban and rapidly developing areas of Solano County and the cities of San Rafael, Novato, Petaluma, Napa, and Benicia, and the Ports of Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. Urban runoff discharges from these areas are considered significant sources of pollutants to waters of the region and may be causing or threatening to cause violation of water quality objectives. The Water Board intends to consider similar action for these at a later time. The City and County of San Francisco is not permitted under the storm water program because it has a combined (sanitary and storm) sewer system operating in accordance with existing NPDES permits. The Water Board will conduct surveillance activities and provide overall direction to verify and oversee implementation of urban runoff control programs. Technical guidance for prevention activities, the identification, assignment, and implementation of control measures, and monitoring will be developed. 4.14.2 HIGHWAY RUNOFF CONTROL PROGRAMAn essential component of reducing pollutant loading to storm drain systems involves managing runoff from public roads. While many roads fall under the jurisdiction of entities responsible for storm drain systems, public highways are controlled by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In order to ensure that all public highways are maintained to reduce pollutant runoff, the Water Board issued a stormwater NPDES permit to Caltrans in August, 1994. The permit requires implementation of a highway Stormwater Management Plan which addresses the design, construction, and maintenance of highway facilities relative to reducing pollutant runoff discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The highway runoff management plan shall include litter control, management of pesticide/herbicide use, reducing direct discharges, reducing runoff velocity, grassed channels, curb elimination, catch basin maintenance, appropriate street cleaning, establishing and maintaining vegetation, infiltration practices, and detention/retention practices. In addition, the plan must include monitoring the effectiveness of control measures, runoff water quality, and pollutant loads. When possible, Caltrans is expected to coordinate with existing agencies and programs related to the reduction of pollutants in highway runoff. 4.14.3 INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY CONTROL PROGRAMIndustrial stormwater sources are subject to best available technology (BAT) economically-based standards. Federal regulations require stormwater permits for any site where industrial activity takes place (or has in the past), and materials are exposed to stormwater. The definitions of industrial activities subject to these permits (provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 122.26, revised December 18, 1992) are incorporated by reference into this plan. This incorporation by reference is prospective including future changes as they take effect. The Water Board will require an NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater from all industrial facilities where such activities occur. These permits apply to the discharge from any system used to collect and convey stormwater at industrial sites. These sites include, but are not limited to, industrial plant yards, access roads and rail lines, material and refuse handling areas, storage areas (including tank farms) and areas where significant amounts of materials remain from past activity. Permits are issued both to privately and publicly (federal, state, and municipal) owned facilities. The Water Board's permitting strategy for industrial facilities is based on a four-tier set of priorities for issuing permits. At a minimum, all permits will require compliance with all local agency requirements. General permits for industrial facilities will not be less stringent than individual permits. 4.14.3.1 TIER I: GENERAL PERMITTINGThe majority of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity in the region will be covered under a general permit issued by the State Water Board in November, 1991. 4.14.3.2 TIER II: SPECIFIC WATERSHED PERMITTINGIn some watersheds, water quality has been impacted by stormwater discharges from facilities associated with industrial activity. Facilities within these watersheds will be targeted for individual stormwater permits or regulation under watershed-specific general permits. The Water Board issued a general permit for industrial activity in the portion of Santa Clara County that drains to South San Francisco Bay to support the county's comprehensive control program and will consider a similar general permit for Alameda County at a later time. 4.14.3.3 TIER III: INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC PERMITTINGSpecific industrial categories will be targeted for individual or industry-specific general permits. For example, the Water Board issued a general permit for storm water discharges from boatyards in August 1992. The use of general permits is intended to alleviate the administrative burden of issuing storm water permit for individual industrial facilities. In some cases, such as large U.S. Department of Defense facilities, individual sites or classes of sites may be significant sources of pollutants, and individual permit(s) specific to these classes of sites are warranted. The Water Board considers stormwater discharges from automotive operations, including gas stations, auto repair shops, auto body shops, dealerships, and mobile fleet-washing businesses to be significant sources of pollutants to waters in the region. Local agencies implementing comprehensive control programs are addressing these discharges through ordinances as part of their comprehensive control programs. The effectiveness of local measures will be assessed before the Water Board considers permitting these under a separate industrial permit. 4.14.3.4 TIER IV: FACILITY-SPECIFIC PERMITTINGA variety of factors will be used to target specific facilities for individual permits, such as amount and characteristics of runoff, size of facility, and contribution to existing water quality problems. Permitted individual facilities will be required to identify "hot areas" where runoff may contact pollutants; activities that may release pollutants to runoff; segregate stormwater discharges from the "hot areas;" and identify and implement control measures for "hot areas.” In addition, permittees will be required to eliminate all non-stormwater discharges to storm drain systems unless authorized by an NPDES permit or determined not to be a source of pollutants requiring an NPDES permit. 4.14.4 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CONTROL PROGRAMThe Water Board will require an NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater from construction activities involving disturbance of five acres or greater total land area or are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs greater than five acres of total land area. The majority of construction activity discharges in the region will be permitted under a general permit issued by the State Water Board in 1992. Permit conditions address pollutant and waste discharges occurring during construction activities and the discharge of pollutants in runoff after construction is completed. Permit conditions are consistent with the Water Board's erosion and sediment control policy (Resolution No. 80-5) and consistent with local agency ordinance and regulatory programs. The intent of the permit is not to supersede local programs, but rather to complement local requirements. This will require local agencies to effectively address construction activities through their early planning, CEQA processes, and implementation of development control measures as part of their baseline or comprehensive control programs. 4.15 AGRICULTURAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENTAgricultural wastewaters and the effect of agricultural operations must be considered in terms of land use practices and controls developed in the agricultural element of land use plans. The activities of primary importance to water quality in this basin are animal confinement and irrigation practices. Agricultural pesticide use and limits on fertilizer application are not specifically considered because of the limited applicability in this region. 4.15.1 ANIMAL CONFINEMENT OPERATIONSAnimal confinement operations such as kennels, horse stables, poultry ranches, and dairies, raise or shelter animals in high densities. Wastes from such facilities can contain significant amounts of pathogens, oxygen-depleting organic matter, nitrogen compounds, and other suspended and dissolved solids. In addition, erosion is also a common problem associated with these facilities. Runoff of storm or wash water can carry waste and sediment and degrade receiving surface waters. Groundwaters can also be degraded when water containing these wastes percolates into aquifers. The risk of water quality degradation increases during the rainy season when animal waste containment and treatment ponds are often overloaded. Minimum design and management standards for the protection of water quality from confined animal operations are promulgated in Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 6. These regulations prohibit the discharge of facility wash water, animal wastes, and stormwater runoff from animal confinement areas into waters of the state. They also specify minimum design and waste management standards including:
The Water Board has the authority to enforce these regulations through Waste Discharge Requirements. Facilities such as the dairies located in Marin and Sonoma counties and horse boarding stables are typical of animal confinement operations within the region. 4.15.1.1 DAIRY WASTE MANAGEMENTMuch of the land within the Tomales Bay, Petaluma River, Napa, and Sonoma Valley watersheds is used for agricultural purposes. Within these watersheds, a significant number of livestock are housed and grazed. Animal waste can cause water quality problems through runoff into surface and groundwaters of the state. Stockpiled manure, washwater, and stormwater runoff from corrals, pens, and other animal confinement areas are potential sources of water pollution due to their high bacteria levels (the coliform group used as indicators), ammonia, nitrate and suspended solids. Detergents, disinfectants, and other biocides commonly used may also contribute to the toxicity of animal wastes. These constituents can be extremely deleterious to fish and other forms of aquatic life. High bacterial levels have had an adverse impact on shellfish resources in the region (i.e., commercial shellfish harvesting in Tomales Bay). Problems facing the dairy industry include manure containment during the rainy season, appropriate manure dispersal on pasture land, and implementation of range management practices aimed at water quality protection. The availability of ample farm and pastureland is therefore extremely important in managing animal waste. Since the 1970s, the cooperative relationship between the Water Board and the dairy industry has been an important aspect of dairy waste control. That relationship has been instrumental in the construction of dairy waste handling, treatment, and disposal facilities in the late 1970s. However, proper waste control management is just as important as the physical facility. Management techniques include routing wash water and drainage to impervious holding and storage areas, constructing manure storage areas controlling both subsurface infiltration and runoff, stormwater overflow protection for retention basins, and applying manures and wastewater on land at reasonable rates for maximum plant uptake of nitrogen. Poor practices that have led to water quality problems in the past include: inadequate maintenance and operation of facilities; overloading treatment and storage facilities; increase of herd size without commensurate additions to waste handling facilities; poor range management practices; and simple neglect of seasonal waste management responsibilities. 4.15.1.2 DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONBoth the regulation and the support services for the dairy industry involve several federal, state, and local agencies. Each has its particular role and mission, but all share the goal of protecting the beneficial uses of state waters while assisting dairies in complying with regulations while conducting their day-to-day business. The following agencies play a direct role in dairy waste management and regulation:
To address dairy waste management concerns, dairy operators in Marin and Sonoma Counties have formed a Dairy Waste Committee. The Dairy Waste Committee supports dairy operators in their efforts to solve waste control problems and locate technical and financial assistance. The Committee serves as a vehicle through which the Water Boards and California Department of Fish and Game can disseminate information on water quality regulations and requirements. This committee does and will continue to play an important role in any successful waste control program. Additionally, the Southern Sonoma and Marin County Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) have a cooperative, voluntary program in which a farmer agrees to use the land within its capabilities, develop a conservation plan, and apply conservation practices to meet objectives and technical standards of the RCDs. In turn, the RCD agrees to furnish the farmer with information and technical assistance in order to carry out the conservation plan. WATER BOARD PROGRAMPERMITTING/WAIVER OF PERMITSGenerally, discharges are subject to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) issued by the Water Board. However, the Water Board may waive WDRs where such a waiver is not against the public interest and still assures the protection of beneficial uses of state waters. For the present, the Water Board has been waiving WDRs for dairies where proper waste control facilities are in place and management practices are in conformance with the California Code of Regulations - Title 23, Article 3, Chapter 15 (Discharge of Waste to Land). CONTINUING WASTE CONTROL PLANNINGIn 1990, the State Water Board established a Dairy Waste Task Force to look at the dairy industry statewide and develop standards for dairy regulation. The main emphasis has been on developing better communication and guidance materials for the industry; developing a dairy survey form to help the Water Boards determine if a dairy qualifies for a waiver from WDRs; determining the number and location of dairies; develop more uniform WDRs; and preparing an outreach program aimed at the dairy industry, local government, and the public. The Water Board directs the Executive Officer to continue the following staff activities:
4.15.2 IRRIGATION OPERATIONSAn increase in the concentration of soluble salts contained in percolating irrigation water is an unavoidable result of consumptive use of water. Salt management within soils and groundwater is considered separate from water management, but is closely related to drainage control and wastewater operations. For irrigated agriculture to continue in the future, acceptable levels of salts in soils and groundwaters must be controlled. Maintenance of a favorable salt balance, that being a reasonable balance between the import and export of salts from individual basins, must be considered to control increases in mineral content. This is especially applicable for the Livermore and Santa Clara Valley groundwater basins. The ultimate consequences of regulatory action for irrigation operations must be carefully assessed. The "no-degradation" concept in connection with salt levels is not appropriate in all circumstances. A concept of minimal degradation might be considered in some areas. It would need to be coupled with management of the surface and underground water supplies in order to assure acceptable degradation effects. If minimal degradation is considered, it can be offset by either recharge and replenishment of groundwater basins with higher quality water that will furnish dilution to the added salts, or by drainage of degraded waters at a sufficient rate to maintain low salts and salts leaving the basin. To aid recharge and dilution operations, additional winter runoff can be stored in surface reservoirs for subsequent use with either surface stream or groundwater basin quantity/quality management. 4.16 WATER RECYCLINGPer Water Code Section 13050, recycled water means water which, as a result of treatment of waste, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource. To date in this Region, disposal of most municipal and industrial wastewater has primarily involved discharges into the Region's watersheds and the Estuary. With growing awareness of the impacts of toxic discharges, drought, future urbanization, and growth on the local aquatic habitat, there is an increasing need to look for other sources of water. Increasingly, conservation and water recycling (formerly referred to as reclamation) will be needed to deal with these long-term water issues. The Water Board recognizes that people of the Region are interested in developing the capacity to conserve and recycle water to supplement existing water supplies, meet future water requirements, and restore the Region's watersheds and Estuary. Disposal of wastewater to inland, estuarine or coastal waters is not considered a permanent solution where the potential exists for conservation, water recycling, and reuse. The Constitution of California, Article X, declares that, "...because of the conditions prevailing in the state, the general welfare requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest of the people and for the public welfare." In other words, when suitable recycled water is available, it should be used to supplement existing water supplies used for agricultural, industrial, municipal, and environmental purposes. The Water Board also recognizes and supports the concept that water reuse is an essential component for planning future water supply, especially in areas dependent on imported water. This includes projects that use recycled water to increase the local water supply, to improve the salt balance in the groundwater basin, or to reduce the need for wastewater export through recycled water irrigation and groundwater recharge with imported water or with high-quality recycled water. The year-round, dependable recycled water resource may also be appropriate for stream flow augmentation to enhance beneficial uses of streams. State Water Board Resolution 77-1, adopted in 1977, requires the State and Regional Water Boards to encourage water recycling projects for beneficial use using wastewaters that would otherwise be discharged to marine or brackish receiving waters or evaporation ponds. The resolution also specifies using recycled water to replace or supplement the use of fresh water or better quality water, and to preserve, restore, or enhance in-stream beneficial uses, including fish, wildlife, recreation and aesthetics associated with any surface water or wetlands. 4.16.1 WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE PROGRAMBefore a wastewater producer can obtain an increase in connections and discharge flows under the Water Board's NPDES program, it must demonstrate that a maximum effort has been made to develop and implement a credible and effective water recycling program. This program must be integrated with a source control program (Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention Program (Section 4.13 Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention)) and a water conservation program. All water recycling projects involve three components: 1) treatment of wastewater to produce water of quality suitable for the intended reuse; 2) distribution, which may also include storage, to convey the treated water to the place(s) of use; and 3) the end use, reuse. The most common types of reuse involve discharges to land for irrigation of landscape plants or crops, but reuse may also include non-discharge uses such as for cooling water or toilet flushing. Each of these components is subject to various design and operational requirements specified in the Water Recycling Criteria (WRC) codified at Title 22, CCR, Division 4, Chapter 3, which were extensively revised and updated by Department of Health Services (DHS) from 1993 to 2001. The Water Board in conjunction with DHS implements the WRC. DHS and the State Water Board have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on Use of Reclaimed Water. The intent of the MOA is to insure that there is coordination among DHS, the State Water Board and the Regional Water Boards to implement the recycled water program. The Water Board is the permitting agency for water recycling projects through issuance of water recycling requirements, also called Water Reuse Requirements (WRRs). The WRRs require a discharger proposing a new water-recycling project to prepare an engineering report describing the project, for review and approval by DHS. The Water Board may then prescribe WRRs for the project based on recommendations from DHS. WRRs include relevant specifications from the WRC and other applicable requirements based on Water Board plans and policies, such as effluent limits and operation, and monitoring and reporting requirements. WRRs may be issued for discrete single-facility reuse projects or for large-scale projects such as municipality-based reuse programs involving multiple types and places of reuse. In 1996, in order to facilitate water recycling and reuse in the Region, the Water Board adopted the General Water Reuse Requirements for Municipal Wastewater and Water Agencies, Water Board Order No. 96-011 (General Water Reuse Permit). This permit is applicable to producers, distributors, and users of non-potable recycled municipal wastewater throughout the Region. The intent of the General Water Reuse Permit is to streamline the permitting process and delegate, to the fullest extent possible, the responsibility of administrating water reuse programs to local agencies. Regulation under the General Water Reuse Permit requires submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Water Board and written authorization from the Water Board’s Executive Officer. Under the General Water Reuse Permit, water recycling and reuse have expanded rapidly throughout the Region. It is estimated that twenty wastewater or water distribution agencies in the Region will be operating under the General Water Reuse Permit by 2007. In 2001, the State Legislature established the California Recycled Water Task Force (Task Force). The mission of the Task Force was to evaluate the current framework of state and local rules, regulations, ordinances, and permits to identify opportunities for and obstacles to the safe use of recycled water in California. The Task Force consisted of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, private entities, environmental organizations, universities, and public-interest groups. The Task Force identified and adopted recommendations to address obstacles, impediments, and opportunities for California to increase its recycled water usage as described in the report “Water Recycling 2030, Recommendations of California’s Recycled Water Task Force." 4.16.2 INTERAGENCY WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM AND COORDINATIONImplementation of water recycling projects requires the involvement, approval, and support of a number of agencies, including state and local health departments, the Water Board, local POTWs and water districts, and land use planning agencies. Interagency coordination must be a priority of all parties involved in water recycling. Failure to coordinate activities can result in the inability to carry out water recycling projects in a timely, consistent, and cost-effective manner. The Water Board seeks cooperation and participation of professionals from the water recycling industry and the water, health, and regulatory agencies to assure the development of criteria that are both attainable and appropriate. To facilitate inter-/intra-regional recycling projects, interagency coordination is necessary when the wastewater agency produces recycled water outside of an interested water purveyor's service area. Effective communication and cooperation between agencies regarding distribution and service is vital and should begin early in the planning process. This will assure the water purveyor that there will be no duplication of service, enable interagency agreement on project development and implementation, and help avoid any unnecessary delays that could jeopardize a project. Several regional water-recycling programs have been initiated in the Region to facilitate water reuse in contiguous areas. This has heralded a new way to implement water-recycling projects by focusing agencies toward regional collaboration, irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. This has the effect of integrating water and wastewater planning to concurrently solve water supply and wastewater discharge problems, and will lead to more efficient water recycling projects by taking advantage of economics of scale. One such program is the South Bay Recycling Program in Santa Clara County. In addition, the North Bay Watershed Association was created, “to help regulated local and regional public agencies work cooperatively on water resource issues that impact areas beyond traditional boundaries in order to promote stewardship of the North Bay Watershed (Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties).” The coordination and integration of water reuse activities in the North Bay is an important component of the Association’s functions. 4.17 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SLUDGE MANAGEMENTOne particular type of solid waste is wastewater sludge, a by-product of wastewater treatment. Raw sludge usually contains 93 to 99.5 percent water, with the balance being solids that were present in the wastewater and that were added to or cultured by wastewater treatment processes. Most POTWs treat the sludge prior to ultimate use or disposal. Normally this treatment consists of dewatering and/or digestion. In some cases, such as at the Palo Alto treatment plant, the sludge is incinerated. Treated and untreated sludges often contain high concentrations of toxic metals and often contain significant amounts of toxic organic pollutants and pathogens. The storage and disposal of municipal sludges on land can result in degradation of ground and surface water if not properly performed. Therefore, sludge handling and disposal must be regulated. On February 19, 1993, the U.S. EPA promulgated national standards regulating the use or disposal of non-hazardous sewage sludge (40 CFR Part 503, et.seq.). Part 503 regulations primarily affect sewage sludge (also known as "biosolids") use and disposal by incineration, surface disposal, and land application (including distribution and marketing). Part 503 regulations also establish pollutant limits, operational and maintenance practices, monitoring frequency, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The federal definition of sewage sludge includes domestic septage (from septic tanks, cesspool, portable toilet, etc.). Disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) is not considered surface disposal. Thus, the MSWLF is not regulated by the national sewage sludge program. The State of California has neither requested nor been granted the delegation of the federal sewage sludge management program at this time. Therefore, U.S. EPA will be responsible for implementation and enforcement of the national rule. Under the rule, facilities that must apply for a permit include the generators, treaters and disposers of sewage sludge. Nevertheless, 40 CFR Part 503 has, for the most part, been written to be self-implementing. This means that anyone who uses or disposes of sewage sludge regulated by 40 CFR Part 503 must comply with all the provisions of the rule, whether or not a permit has been issued. State regulations of the handling and disposal of sludge are contained in Chapter 15 and DTSC standards for hazardous waste management. Prior to promulgation of the national rule, sewage sludge facilities were regulated by the Water Board through the issuance of site-specific waste discharge requirements. The Water Board may continue to regulate certain sewage sludge facilities when believed to be necessary for the protection of water quality. 4.18 ON-SITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPERSAL SYSTEMSAs the population of the Region increases, demand for new development increases. In many cases, new development is within areas served by municipal sewer systems. However development is also occurring in outlying areas not served by existing sewerage agencies. In those instances, new discrete sewerage systems are being proposed. These are primarily onsite wastewater treatment and dispersal systems (onsite systems or septic systems) serving individual homes, but include community systems serving multiple residences. Today there are more than 110,000 onsite systems throughout the Region, and approximately 1,000 new systems are approved each year. In response to these development pressures, the Water Board adopted a Policy on Discrete Sewerage Facilities in 1978. The policy set forth the actions the Water Board will take with respect to proposals for individual or community sewerage systems serving new development. An important provision of the policy required the development of guidelines for acceptable onsite system practices. The Water Board's policy and guidelines are presented below. 4.18.1 POLICY ON DISCRETE SEWERAGE FACILITIESThis policy enumerates the following principles, which apply to all wastewater discharges:
The policy also makes the following requests of city and county governments:
Finally, the policy also requires that a public entity assume legal authority and responsibility for new community wastewater treatment and dispersal systems. Community systems are defined as collection sewers plus treatment facilities serving multiple discharges under separate ownership. The policy requires local governments, during the development approval process, to consider either the formation of a new government entity or an existing public entity to assume this responsibility. 4.18.2 ONSITE SYSTEM GUIDELINESSince the early 1960s, the Water Board, pursuant to Section 13296 of the Water Code, adopted waivers for reporting certain septic system discharges in all the Region's counties except San Francisco. In its policy, the Water Board required the development of individual system guidelines concentrating mainly on septic systems. These guidelines provided information on system design and construction, operation and maintenance, and the conduct of cumulative impact studies. In 1979, the Water Board adopted Resolution No. 79-5: Minimum Guidelines for the Control of Individual Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems (Minimum Guidelines). These guidelines include recommended practices for onsite system design, construction, operation and maintenance, and cumulative impact assessments, along with supporting rationale. The guidelines focus on the most common and conventional type of onsite systems, a septic tank followed by gravity-flow discharges into a subsurface soil absorption system, but underlying principles remain applicable to all types of onsite systems. 4.18.3 ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE SYSTEMSThe conventional onsite system, when properly constructed and operated, has long been a reliable and acceptable method of providing onsite sewage management. However, there are widespread conditions throughout the Region that preclude the use of conventional systems, including high groundwater, shallow or poor quality soil, or steep slopes. In recent years, there has been active interest and research in the development of alternative methods of onsite wastewater management to accommodate these limiting conditions. Alternative methods currently in use include additional treatment prior to soil discharge such as by a sand filter, or improved methods of dispersal into native soil such as by pressurized distribution throughout the soil absorption system, or via an engineered above-grade mound unit. While alternative methods can afford improved practices, the use of alternative systems is not without limitations. The site and soil conditions that preclude conventional practices remain and must be appropriately addressed, since all onsite systems ultimately rely on soil absorption of all or most of the wastewater generated. Most alternative systems require a high degree of design expertise, which increases the danger of faulty design or installation and complicates the review of various proposals. Furthermore, given that alternative systems are primarily used in areas of existing site or soil limitations, in the event of failure, options for replacement will be few, and corrections difficult to achieve. Finally, most alternative systems require a far more intensive and sophisticated level of management than conventional systems, including inspection, monitoring and maintenance by qualified service providers, and increased regulatory oversight, as well as careful use and operation by the homeowner. Recognizing the need for a position on alternative systems, the Water Board adopted the following statement in the 1979 Minimum Guidelines:
The fundamental point is that the Water Board will allow the use of alternative systems only if adequate design review, system management, and means for failure correction are assured, and a county or some other public agency assumes ultimate responsibility for these actions. The Water Board may authorize local agencies to approve and permit alternative on-site systems, provided the local regulatory program is found to be acceptable and in accordance with the Water Board's position on alternative systems discussed above. An acceptable program should include a) siting and design criteria for the types of alternative systems being approved, b) procedures for on-going inspection, monitoring, and evaluation of these systems, and c) appropriate local regulations for implementation and enforcement of the program. Authorization may be granted through a conditional waiver adopted by the Water Board and will typically include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Water Board and the local agency. Typically, that agency will be the county environmental health department. The MOU provides a means for identifying the responsibilities of both the Water Board and the local agency, applicable criteria for siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring, and procedures for implementing the program. Alternative onsite system designs proposed for approval in a local agency program should be substantiated by suitable reference materials demonstrating successful performance under site and soil conditions similar to the local conditions, including previous field or research facility testing and documentation of applicable design, installation and use criteria. System designs that have not been fully proven under proposed conditions will be considered experimental and treated with caution. In general, experimental systems will require more careful siting and design review and, if approved, intensive monitoring and inspection to ensure adequate system operation and performance. Experimental systems are generally approved only for limited use, until successful performance has been demonstrated and documented, and acceptable design, installation and use criteria determined. 4.18.4 GRAYWATER SYSTEMSGraywater systems are a special group of onsite systems that are used to manage only isolated domestic wastewaters that have not come in contact with toilet wastes. In 1997, the California Building Standards Commission approved revised California Graywater Standards. These standards were developed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), are codified at Title 24, CCR, Part 5, Appendix G, and apply to all graywater systems statewide. The standards specify the means by which certain non-toilet wastewaters may be collected, filtered, and discharged into onsite subsurface irrigation systems. Allowable sources of graywater include showers, tubs, bathroom sinks and laundry water. Discharged graywater may only be used for subsurface landscape irrigation. The standards apply to both residential and commercial buildings. Cities and counties have authority to develop policies and procedures for the implementation of graywater programs. In developing these, consultation with the Water Board and local water districts can ensure that potential impacts on local water quality are taken into consideration. 4.19 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLCurrent estimates of annual sediment inflow to San Francisco Bay are 5.9 million cubic yards with 3.9 million cubic yards contributed through the Delta and 2.0 million cubic yards from Bay Area tributary streams. By the year 2000, ABAG has estimated that approximately 322,500 acres of land area will be converted to urban use. This is a 73 percent increase above the 1975 urbanized land area. This increase in urbanized land use can be expected to be the future source of much of the sediment that will reach the rivers, streams and channels and ultimately the Bay system each year. Soil erosion and related water quality impacts may result from a wide variety of causes including construction, hillside cultivation, non-maintained roads, timber harvesting, improper hiking/ biking trail use, and off-road vehicles. Natural erosion processes are accelerated when existing protective cover is removed before, during, and following construction and agricultural activities. Studies relate that erosion on land where construction activities are taking place is about 10 times greater than on land in cultivated row crops, 200 times greater than on pasture land, and 2,000 time greater than on timber land that has not been logged. The exposure of the soil mantle to falling rain, overland and channelized flow, and the impact of equipment moving over the site results in the increased movement and loss of soil. Damage from erosion and sedimentation can be categorized in the following ways:
In most cases, the adverse results of human activities can be reduced and in some instances eliminated through the use of both structural and non-structural measures of various types that are properly employed at the appropriate time. The high cost of lost resources, resource replenishment and after-the-fact repair and maintenance make both pre-project erosion control planning and preventive maintenance necessary. The goals of and the program for erosion and sediment control are summarized below. GOALThe goal of the Water Board’s Erosion and Sediment Control Program is to reduce and prevent accelerated (human-caused) erosion to the level necessary to restore and protect beneficial uses of receiving waters now significantly impaired, or threatened with impairment, by sediment. This goal is to be attained through implementation of proper soil management practices. Voluntary implementation is encouraged, but enforcement authority will be exercised where beneficial uses of water are clearly threatened by poor soil management practices. PROGRAMIn May of 1980, the Water Board adopted two separate items to alert local governments to the Water Board's concern on erosion control problems related to construction activities. The first item was a statement of intent (Resolution No. 80-5) regarding erosion control which stated that the Water Board:
The second item was a memorandum of understanding negotiated with the Council of Bay Area Resource Conservation Districts that is intended to provide the following:
The Water Board has recognized and encouraged the efforts that ABAG has made since mid-1980 in working with local Bay Area governments to improve their ordinance and regulatory programs on erosion and sediment control. ABAG's 1995 Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, which provides specific guidance to local governments, is an important tool for improving erosion and sediment control. The Water Board intends to follow the guidelines listed below in regulating erosion and sedimentation for the protection of beneficial uses of water.
4.20 DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF DREDGED SEDIMENTDredging and dredged sediment disposal in the San Francisco Bay Area is an ongoing activity because of continual shoaling which impedes navigation and other water dependent activities. Large volumes of sediment are transported in the waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers which drain the Central Valley. The average annual sediment load to the San Francisco Bay system from these two rivers is estimated to be eight million cubic yards. Of this amount, some four million cubic yards is transported out of the Bay through the Golden Gate. The remaining four million cubic yards is circulated and/or deposited in the Bay. In addition, some two and one-half million cubic yards are deposited into the Bay from local watersheds. Annual maintenance dredging of shipping channels, harbors and marinas in the San Francisco Bay results in disposal of between two and eight million cubic yards of dredged material at in-bay disposal sites. There are currently three designated disposal sites for use by the Corps, the Navy and other dredgers. Additionally, the Corps disposes of material from several projects at designated sites in Suisun Bay and on the San Francisco Bar (west of the Golden Gate). All aquatic dredged material disposal sites are operated as "dispersive" sites, that is material disposed at the sites is intended to disperse and be carried by currents out to sea. 4.20.1 REGULATORY FRAMEWORKThe Corps of Engineers issues federal permits for dredging projects pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As a part of this permitting process, the dredging permit applicant must seek water quality certification from the State of California, in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Currently the applicant must contact the Water Board for 401 certification. The Water Board may waive certification, or it may recommend to the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board that Certification be granted or denied. Water quality certifications often contain conditions that the permittee must meet during the term of the permit. For example, Certifications often contain conditions requiring periodic testing of the dredged material, or avoidance of sensitive ecological areas and spawning grounds. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) also regulates dredging and disposal under the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act. 4.20.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DREDGING AND DISPOSAL IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENTDuring the late 1980s and continuing to the present, concern over the potential impacts of dredged sediment disposal in San Francisco Bay has increased substantially, forcing regulatory agencies to reexamine their dredging policies. The Water Board, during their triennial review of the Basin Plan in 1986, stated their intention to update and revise the Water Board's dredged sediment disposal policy for San Francisco Bay. During the triennial review, the Water Board recognized that periodic dredging is necessary to maintain the beneficial use presented by navigation and other water dependent activities. The Water Board also stated their intention to institute a more rigorous testing program to determine the suitability of dredged sediment for unconfined aquatic disposal in San Francisco Bay. Most dredging and dredge material disposal operations cause localized and ephemeral impacts with related biological consequences (Table 4-12). In August, 1980, the Water Board adopted a general policy for the regulation of dredge sediment disposal. Many concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the Corps' regional procedures to identify potential pollution conditions. One area of concern is implicit in the guidelines and protocol, for testing of sediment for ocean disposal. The current ocean disposal criteria (pursuant to the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act) are more stringent than the inland criteria (governed under the Clean Water Act). In the 1980s it was determined that the Alcatraz disposal site was accumulating significant amounts of material, with the depth of the site going from the original 110 feet to 30 feet. The mounding at the disposal site ultimately became a threat to navigation. The Corps eventually dredged the Alcatraz site to increase the depth, redistributing the material within the disposal area several times between 1984 and 1986. In September of 1988, Water Board staff circulated and presented an issue paper entitled "A Review of Issues and Policies Related to Dredge Spoil Disposal in San Francisco Bay." The issue paper discussed the major environmental concerns posed by dredged sediment disposal in San Francisco Bay, namely: (1) mounding at the Alcatraz disposal site which posed a navigational hazard and has the potential to alter circulation patterns in the Bay; (2) the disposal of increasingly large amounts of material has the potential to alter benthic and shoreline habitats and to increase water column turbidity; and (3) the resuspension of dredged sediments may increase contaminant bioavailability. The issue paper presented a range of alternative strategies for the Water Board to consider. Public and agency testimony was received by the Water Board during hearings on September 15, 1988 and October 19, 1988. Agencies testifying included the Corps, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). In the issue paper, Water Board staff recommended that the Water Board consider adopting quantity and quality limits for the disposal of dredged sediment at unconfined aquatic disposal sites within San Francisco Bay. Additionally, the Water Board and the Corps took steps to prevent further "mounding" at the region's single largest disposal site, the Alcatraz site. In 1989, the Water Board adopted volume targets which served to prevent over-filling of the region's three aquatic disposal sites. BCDC also revised its policies to restrict in-bay disposal. Land disposal avoids many of the potential adverse impacts in aquatic systems. A different set of potential environmental impacts is associated with land disposal but also the opportunity for creating environmental benefits. 4.20.3 DREDGING STUDY PROGRAMS4.20.3.1 DREDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMIn the late 1980s, the Corps of Engineers undertook a series of local dredging studies as a part of the Dredged Management Program (DMP). Additionally, the Corps nationally undertook a Demonstration Program, to examine the environmental impacts from various dredged material disposal practices. The goal of these programs was to examine: 1) factors associated with aquatic disposal practices, 2) the characteristics of dredged material, 3) alternative methods of disposal and 4) dredging technology. However, because the DMP was conducted internally; was not consensus-based; and did not fully involve other state and federal agencies, environmental groups and the dredging community; concern and conflict continued to surround dredging in San Francisco Bay. One particularly notable instance of continued conflict was a 1989 protest and blockade of the aquatic disposal sites by environmental and fishing interests. In the fall of 1989 and early 1990, the Corps undertook a new approach to studying environmental issues surrounding dredging and disposal site management. 4.20.3.2 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (LTMS)The new approach, called the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for dredged material, was designed as a cooperative process based on active participation by state and federal permitting agencies. The lead LTMS agencies share four basic goals related to the fact that dredging is important both economically and environmentally (Table 4-13). The LTMS structure is a pyramid form with technical committees at the base, and appointed state and federal agency administrators at the top (Table 4-14). Three staff-level committees, or "workgroups" were charged with addressing technical issues and managing environmental studies. The Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, was charged with general coordination, contracting and administrative functions. Later in the process, a fourth committee was formed to carry out various LTMS implementation tasks. The implementation committee has been primarily concerned with permit coordination and streamlining, but has also attempted to address inequities in upland disposal site financing, upland/non-tidal site acquisition and changes to Federal dredging policy. Above the technical and implementation committees is the Management Committee, represented by management executives from five key LTMS agencies. The Management Committee, in turn, takes direction from the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee consists of the chairpersons of the Water Board and BCDC, the USEPA Regional Administrator, the State Dredging Coordinator (Governor Appointed), and the commander of the South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers. Broad public input is gained via the Policy Review Committee, which meets quarterly to review the work and progress of LTMS. 4.20.3.3 THE LTMS PROCESSThe LTMS process allows participation by resource agencies, environmental groups and the maritime industry. In 1990, the LTMS Study Plan was approved by the participating agencies. The Study Plan outlined in general, the LTMS process and which scientific fields were pertinent and in which areas there existed "gaps" in knowledge. Technical work groups were established order to take responsibility for examining issues in the arenas of: 1) deep ocean disposal, 2) in-bay aquatic disposal, and 3) upland/non-aquatic disposal and re-use. Staff at the Water Board, BCDC and USEPA were appointed to chair the three work groups (Table 4-14). Each committee was budgeted funds by the Corps in order to carry out approved studies. Throughout the LTMS process, the Corps has retained responsibility for contract management, budgets, and other administrative duties. For the first several years of the program, the In-bay studies work-group also served as a part of the San Francisco Estuary Project, as it was also designated as the subcommittee on "Dredging and Waterway Modification." The LTMS process has resulted in new findings regarding sediment toxicity testing and transport; the development of new testing procedures; and new approaches to disposal of dredged material. Additionally, the LTMS participants continue to work toward better disposal site management, and, perhaps more importantly, an increased level of coordination and cooperation between those involved with dredging. Participating federal and state permitting and resources agencies receive technical and policy input from dredging, environmental and fishing communities through the LTMS structure. 4.20.3.4 OCEAN STUDIESThe Ocean Studies Work Group, funded through LTMS, provided input on U.S. EPA' s study and designation of a deep ocean disposal site for dredged material. The group oversaw studies in the areas of sediment transport modeling, benthic ecology and environmental risk. The results of various technical studies were compiled in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in which five disposal sites were considered. U.S. EPA completed an EIS on ocean disposal in August of 1993. Concurrent and following work on the EIS, U.S. EPA, with input from LTMS, moved closer to disposal site use by completing a Site Management and Monitoring Plan. The designated deep ocean disposal site is located about 58 miles offshore, beyond the boundaries of the California National Marine Sanctuaries, in waters which are 6,000 to 9,000 feet deep. The site was formally designated by U.S. EPA on August 11, 1994 (59 Federal Register Section 41243 et seq.) It is expected that the ocean site will be used for disposal of dredged material from large new work and maintenance dredging projects. 4.20.3.5 IN-BAY STUDIESIn-bay disposal studies were undertaken to address several key areas of concern. Following the general terms of the LTMS Study Plan, the In-bay work group examined key environmental concerns in the following areas:
Most of the LTMS in-bay studies were completed by the end of 1994; however, several documents remain in draft form. 4.20.3.6 UPLAND AND NON-TIDAL/REUSE STUDIESThe Upland Studies Program focused on the evaluation of the potential for upland disposal and the use of dredged material as a resource. The group conducted planning-level feasibility studies of potential sites in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Studies examined the engineering, biological and hydrological aspects of wetland restoration using dredged material; as well as, various regulatory and planning issues surrounding upland reuse. Other issues studied by the group included: remedial technologies for treating contaminated sediments, an analysis of seasonal and tidal wetlands in the North Bay and a feasibility study of potential sediment rehandling sites. The LTMS technical studies have added to our information base and have filled some of the "data gaps" that were originally identified in the LTMS Study Plan. In many cases, LTMS studies have confirmed our conceptual views and hypotheses about how the Estuary and the ecosystem functions. 4.20.4 WETLAND RESTORATION USING DREDGED MATERIALWhile the Water Board remains concerned about the impacts of both polluted and clean sediments on the San Francisco Estuary, much of the sediment disposed of in the Region is not polluted and could be used in beneficial ways (termed "reuse"). One of these uses involves the restoration of tidal marshes in areas which were once part of the Bay. These areas, known as diked historic baylands, were once open to the tides and were thriving salt marsh and mudflat ecosystems (further discussion under "Wetlands Protection and Management" section). Decades of land "reclamation," first initiated in the 1800s resulted in diked agricultural lands, the land surface of which have subsided for a variety of reasons. In order to foster growth of marsh vegetation, and proper slough channel formation, the new marsh must be built near mean high tide. In many cases it will be beneficial to place a layer of sediment across the site so as to raise the elevation of the land surface to a point near the mean tide line. LTMS studies have examined the environmental, engineering and economic considerations that are involved in restoring certain sites. The studies commissioned by LTMS have shown that, given current laws and policies, placement of dredged sediment at wetland restoration projects may cost more than traditional in-Bay disposal, but less than ocean disposal. 4.20.4.1 SONOMA BAYLANDSOne such example of this concept is the Sonoma Baylands Wetlands Demonstration Project. The Sonoma Baylands property, which was formerly used for hay production, was acquired by the Sonoma Land Trust for preservation as undeveloped open space. The Sonoma Baylands project was managed by the State Coastal Conservancy which facilitated a partnership between the Corps and the Port of Oakland. Federal legislation was necessary to allow the Corps to direct the construction of the project. The Corps began filling the site with dredged sediment in the fall, 1995, with completion expected in late 1996. The 322-acre Sonoma Baylands site will require some two and a half million cubic yards of sediment prior to contact with tidal waters. The Water Board has issued a permit for the construction of Sonoma Baylands, regulating the placement of dredged sediment and run-off water from the site. Tidal marsh vegetation is expected to be established within five years of construction. 4.20.4.2 MONTEZUMA WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECTThe Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project is planned on an even larger scale. The Montezuma project site is located on northern boundary of Suisun Bay at Collinsville. The site, which is adjacent to the Suisun Marsh reserve, is currently used for sheep ranching and commercial pheasant hunting. The Montezuma project involves the restoration of approximately 1,800 acres of diked historic baylands to tidal action. Like, the Sonoma Baylands site, dredged sediment would be placed at Montezuma in order to account for the heavily subsidence that has occurred at the site. In some areas, up to a seven-foot thick layer of sediment would be necessary to bring the site to a proper elevation for wetland creation. Because the Montezuma site has subsided so much, the quantity of material that potentially will be placed there is in the range of 20 million cubic yards. Montezuma project is currently undergoing CEQA review. 4.20.5 WATER BOARD POLICIES ON DREDGING AND DREDGED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL
|