Chapter 1 Pollution Prevention

Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 1 Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 2 Pollution prevention can improve water quality for all beneficial uses by protecting water at its source and 3 therefore reducing the need and cost for other water management and treatment options. An important 4 pollution prevention strategy is implementation of proper land use management practices to prevent ele- 5 vated sediment loads and other pollutants from entering the source water. By preventing pollution, restor- 6 ing and then protecting improved water quality throughout a watershed, water supplies can be used, and 7 reused, for broader numbers and types of downstream water uses. Improving water quality by protecting 8 source water is consistent with a watershed management approach to water resources problems. In addi- 9 tion, as increasing emphasis is placed on protecting in-stream uses – fish, wildlife, recreation and scenic 10 enjoyment – surface water allocations are administered under ever-tightening restrictions, posing new 11 challenges and giving new direction to the State Water Resource Control Board’s water right activities. 12 Under the public trust doctrine, certain resources are held to be the property of all citizens and subject to 13 continuing supervision by the State. Originally, the public trust was limited to commerce, navigation and 14 fisheries, but over the years the courts have broadened the definition to include recreational and other eco- 15 logical values. 16 In a landmark case, the California Supreme Court held that California water law is an integration of both 17 public trust and appropriative right systems, and that all appropriations may be subject to review if 18 “changing circumstances” warrant their reconsideration and reallocation. At the same time, it held that 19 like other uses, public trust values are subject to the reasonable and beneficial use provisions of the Cali- 20 fornia Constitution. Together with the State Water Board, the courts have concurrent jurisdiction in this 21 area. 22 The difficulty comes in balancing the potential value of a proposed or existing water diversion with the 23 impact it may have on the public trust. After carefully weighing the issues and arriving at a determination, 24 the Board is charged with implementing the action which would protect the latter. The courts also have 25 concurrent jurisdiction in this area. 26 As with all the other pieces of the California water puzzle, protecting through pollution prevention, restor- 27 ing/improving impaired water quality, and allocating the limited resource fairly and impartially among 28 many competing users are among some of the State Water Board’s greatest challenges. 29 Status of Pollution Prevention in California 30 In the past, our main water pollution focus was primarily on those from point source discharges. Pollution 31 can enter a water body from point sources like wastewater treatment facilities, industrial, construction, or 32 municipal discharges from storm water runoff. In recent years, however, as point sources have been more 33 effectively regulated and controlled, the remaining so-called “non-point sources” (NPS) of pollution have 34 become one of the main concerns of the State and Regional Water Boards. These NPS pollutants are 35 generated from a variety of sources, including land use activities associated with agricultural operations 36 and livestock grazing, forestry (silviculture) practices, uncontrolled urban runoff from development 37 activities, deposition of airborne pollutants (i.e.: mercury), hydromodification, and discharges from 38 marinas and recreational boating activities. There are many approaches—regulatory (e.g., dischargers California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-1  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 39 under the Water Code), voluntary/self-determined (e.g., locally led entities that desire a cleaner 40 environment and that conduct riparian and ecosystem restoration activities), or incentive-based (e.g., 41 USDA-NRCS-EQIP-National Water Quality Initiatives funding for implementing Agriculturally based 42 Management Practices)—available for preventing water pollution, particularly NPS pollution. 43 Understanding, planning for, assessing, documenting, managing, and controlling NPS pollution through 44 better land use management is a relatively new focus, and tools for this will continue to be developed. 45 The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), State Water Resources Control Board (State Water 46 Board), California Coastal Commission (CCC), and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional 47 Water Boards) coordinate closely on NPS pollution issues. These agencies implement permitting, 48 enforcement, remediation, monitoring, and watershed-based programs to prevent pollution. In addition, as 49 part of the State of California’s NPS Program Fifteen-Year Strategy (NPS Program Strategy), begun in 50 1998, the State Water Board established an Interagency Coordinating Committee (IACC) to assist more 51 than 20 other State agencies with NPS regulatory authorities and/or land use responsibilities to familiarize 52 themselves with each others’ NPS activities, and to better leverage their resources. The Irrigated Lands 53 Regulatory Program Roundtables and the Marina’s IACC meetings continue to be two of the most 54 effective of these originally formed groups. 55 NPS dischargers are responsible for ensuring that their discharges do not adversely impact the quality of 56 waters of the State. In an effort to prevent pollution, restore impaired water quality or to protect 57 improved waters, the State Water Board funds many water quality projects in the state with bond funded 58 grants and loans and federal Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319 (CWA 319) implementation and 59 planning/assessment grants. These grant and loan funded projects can provide additional information 60 about discharge types, impacts to water quality, and management practices that could possibly minimize 61 these impacts. However, unless additional water bond funds are proposed in the coming years, these bond 62 funds will eventually be depleted, with only the CWA 319 implementation and planning/assessment 63 grants continuing through the State Water Board. The amount of funding made available to the State 64 Water Board for the NPS program, through the federal CWA 319, has declined within recent years (13% 65 in 2010 and 10% in 2011)., The expectation is for these reductions to continue in the future. Although 66 these reductions in funding have not changed the amount of grant funding for the planning/assessment 67 and implementation projects, it has caused a reduction in the amount of NPS staff time available to work 68 to prevent NPS pollution, and improve and restore water quality. The need for increased CWA 319 69 funding and improved collaboration, cooperation and leveraging of all funding sources will be of extreme 70 importance in order to sustain a high level of water quality improvement and restoration efforts. The State 71 Water Board NPS Program has identified watershed-based plan development and funding coordination 72 for planning/assessment and implementation as a high priority. 73 Antidegradation Policy 74 The CWA requires each state to adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and establish procedures for its 75 implementation. The State and federal antidegradation policies require, in part, that where surface waters 76 are of higher quality than necessary to protect beneficial uses (e.g., designated uses of the water which 77 can include, but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power 78 generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, 79 wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves), the high quality of those waters must be maintained 80 unless otherwise provided for by the policies. The federal antidegradation policy prohibits any activity or 17-2 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 81 discharge that would lower the quality of surface water that does not have assimilative capacity, with 82 limited exceptions. The State’s Antidegradation Policy, which pre-dates the federal Clean Water Act, was 83 adopted by the State Water Board in 1968 as State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16. SWRCB 84 Resolution 68-16 establishes the requirement that state water discharges be regulated to achieve the 85 “highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state.” The State’s 86 Antidegradation Policy applies more comprehensively to water quality changes than the federal policy 87 because it also applies to groundwater, not just surface water. 88 The Antidegradation Policy has been incorporated into all Regional Water Boards’ Water Quality Control 89 Plans (Basin Plans). A Basin Plan establishes a comprehensive program of actions designed to preserve, 90 enhance, and restore water quality in all water bodies within the State of California. The Basin Plan is 91 each Regional Water Board’s master water quality control planning document. It designates existing and 92 potential beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater and water quality objectives that protect those 93 uses. Title 40, Part 131 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires each state to adopt water quality 94 standards by designating beneficial uses to be protected and promulgating water quality criteria that 95 protect the designated uses. In California, the beneficial uses and water quality objectives are the State’s 96 water quality standards. 97 The State Water Board uses the precautionary principle approach in many of its ongoing programs, 98 particularly those that involve environmental justice issues. According to this approach, when an activity 99 raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures are taken even if some cause 100 and effect relationships are not fully established. Key elements of the principle include exercising 101 precaution in the face of scientific uncertainty; exploring alternatives to possibly harmful actions; placing 102 the burden of proof on proponents of an activity rather than on victims or potential victims of the activity; 103 and using democratic processes to carry out and enforce the principle – including the public right to 104 informed consent. 105 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 106 The CWA Section 305(b) requires each state to report biennially on the quality and condition of its 107 waters. CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A) requires each state to identify waters within its boundaries which are 108 not meeting water quality standards. The reports submitted by states serve as the basis for EPA's National 109 Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. The State Water Board and Regional Water Boards conduct 110 physical, chemical, and biological monitoring of the waters of the state and prepare a(n) biennial 111 assessment report for USEPA (SWRCB, 2012a). 112 California's CWA Section 303(d) (CWA 303d) Listing Policy sets the rules to identify which waters do 113 not meet water quality standards, even after point source dischargers have installed the required levels of 114 pollution control technology (SWRCB, 2009b). The federal law requires that states establish priority 115 rankings for water on the CWA Section 303(d) list and develop action plans, called Total Maximum 116 Daily Loads (TMDLs) for specific pollutants, to improve water quality and protect designated beneficial 117 uses. TMDLs can take various forms, but most commonly are adopted through the Water Quality Control 118 Plan (Basin Plan) for the Region. 119 Water bodies are most often listed as impaired for sediment, pathogens, nutrients, increased temperature, 120 pesticides, metals, and organic chemicals. The resulting TMDLs are then implemented through the point California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-3  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 121 source and NPS regulatory programs, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 122 (NPDES) permits for point sources (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities, storm water runoff); State waste 123 discharge requirements (WDRs) for point sources not subject to the NPDES permit program and nonpoint 124 source (NPS) discharges; and/or conditional waivers of WDRs. Additionally, the USEPA and the 125 California Department of Public Health (CDPH) have sanitary survey and source water assessment 126 programs specifically for drinking water sources. Beyond these State and federal efforts, many local 127 agencies, businesses, farmers, non-governmental organizations, and watershed-based groups have 128 implemented pollution monitoring and prevention programs directly on their own, or through 129 partnerships. A more detailed discussion of the legal and regulatory framework for protecting ambient 130 water quality is presented in chapter 3 of volume 1 of the Water Plan Update 2013. 131 The 2010 California CWA 303(d) List now includes 87,399 impaired river miles and 7,582,984 acres of 132 impaired lakes and Bays. In some cases, a water body is listed for more than one pollutant; in total, there 133 are 3,489 pollutant-water body listings. There have been a total of 1,473 listings addressed to date, 957 of 134 which were addressed by a TMDL and during the 2010 303(d) listing cycle, and 122 de-listings. 135 Multiple pollutants can be addressed in a single TMDL or multiple water bodies in a watershed may be 136 addressed in a single TMDL. The Regional Water Boards are currently engaged in developing over 181 137 TMDLs, addressing approximately 255 listings in 2011-12. Schedules have been developed for 138 establishing all required TMDLs over a 13-year period. More detailed schedules of work to be undertaken 139 in the short term have also been developed. The State Water Board TMDL Performance Measure Report 140 Card currently provide the number of TMDLs adopted , number of listings addressed by TMDLs and total 141 number of listings remaining . These Performance Measure Report Cards are updated annually and are 142 available to the public on the State Water Board webpage. 143 Surface Water Quality 144 Water quality impairments threaten beneficial uses of surface waters such as domestic use and riparian 145 and aquatic habitats in many parts of the state. In some instances these are major impediments to 146 ecosystem restoration. Urban, military, industrial, hydropower, mining, logging, agriculture, grazing, and 147 recreational activities can potentially degrade water quality. Depleted freshwater flows as a result of 148 upstream dams, diversions, interbasin transfers, and increased urbanization also affect the quality of water 149 downstream, and have public trust doctrine implications. Other water management actions and projects, 150 such as conjunctive use, conveyance, transfers, and conservation, can also affect water quality, both 151 positively and negatively. 152 On May 4, 2010 the State Water Board adopted a policy for water quality control titled “Policy for 153 Maintaining Instream Flows in Northern California Coastal Streams”. The policy contains principles and 154 guidelines for maintaining instream flows for the purposes of water right administration. The geographic 155 scope of the policy encompasses coastal streams from the Mattole River to San Francisco and coastal 156 streams entering northern San Pablo Bay and extends to five counties: Marin, Sonoma, and portions of 157 Napa, Mendocino, and Humboldt Counties. Office of Administrative Law approval was received on 158 September 22, 2010. A Notice of Decision was filed with the Secretary for Resources on September 28, 159 2010. The Policy is now in effect. A three-year Predecisional Trial Program has been implemented. 160 Many significant pollution problems today are the result of persistent “legacy” pollutants, such as 17-4 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 161 mercury, extracted from the Coastal Range and used to process gold in the Sierra Nevada mines in the 162 19th century; industrial chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), used in electrical 163 transformers; and pesticides such as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT). These pollutants also 164 contaminate sediments, making ecosystem restoration efforts more difficult. Hydraulic mining during the 165 1900s still has an adverse impact on numerous Central Valley rivers, major parts of the Klamath River 166 watershed, as well as the San Francisco Bay. Some environmental contaminants of concern, such as 167 mercury, selenium, PCBs, and DDT, are persistent and/or bioaccumulative. Their concentration and 168 toxicity magnify in the food chain and could be toxic to key food chain links, such as aquatic 169 invertebrates, and negatively impact communities and Native American Tribes dependent upon 170 subsistence fisheries. These persistent and/or bioaccumulative contaminants may also have carcinogenic, 171 mutagenic, and teratogenic properties. 172 Assessments based on USEPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) for 173 Coastal Waters, and data collected in California from 1999 through 2000 suggest that most of the state’s 174 coastal waters appear to be in “fair” to “good” condition. The California Monitoring and Assessment 175 Program (CMAP) data collected in California suggest that approximately 67 to 78 percent of California’s 176 wadeable perennial streams statewide are in “Good” condition based on two benthic macroinvertebrate 177 indicators. The CMAP data set does not reliably account for barriers to fish migration, such as those 178 caused by reduced flows or disequilibrium of aggradation/degradation processes. The 2010 California 179 CWA 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments includes water bodies that exceeded established 180 water quality objectives. In some cases, a water body is listed for more than one pollutant; and in total, 181 there are 3,489 pollutant-water body listings. The listings are primarily driven by the lack of attainment or 182 maintenance of water quality to support aquatic organisms. The listing not only assures protection of 183 public water supplies, but also assures the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population 184 of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows for recreational activities such as swimming, wading, and 185 fishing (40 C.F.R. 125.62). The criteria set to protect aquatic plants and animals are more stringent in 186 most cases than the criteria set to protect human health via drinking water. Exceptions include pollutants 187 which are potential human carcinogens, teratogens, and reproductive toxicants. 188 On October 22, 2011, the U.S. EPA issued its final decision regarding the water bodies and pollutants 189 added to California’s 303(d) Lists and 305(b) Reports, referred to as the 2010 Integrated Report. This 190 replaces the 2006 California Clean Water Act 303(d) List as California’s current 303(d) List. The new 191 2010 Integrated Report is available on a new State Water Board website that enables users to easily 192 search and view water quality assessment information about specific water bodies in California. 193 The California Water Quality Monitoring Council seeks to provide multiple perspectives on water quality 194 information and to highlight existing data gaps and inconsistencies in data collection and interpretation, 195 thereby identifying areas for needed improvement in order to better address the public’s questions. A new 196 set of “My Water Quality” portals, supported by a wide variety of public and private organizations, 197 presents California water quality monitoring data and assessment information that may be viewed across 198 space and time. Initial web portal development concentrates on these areas, with web portals being 199 released one at a time. These portals include: Is Our Water Safe To Drink ?, Is It Safe To Swim In Our 200 Waters ?, Is It Safe to Eat Fish and Shellfish From Our Waters ?, Are Our Aquatic Ecosystems Healthy ? 201 and What Stressors and Process Affect Our Water Quality? The first three web portals are currently live 202 and available to the public, and the final portal is in development. California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-5  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 203 Groundwater Quality 204 Human activities increase the discharge of salt and other pollutants to land. Such activities include the 205 application of fertilizers (even at accepted optimal agronomic rates), application of imported water for 206 irrigation containing dissolved salts, and industrial, municipal, and domestic wastewater discharges. 207 Salts are leached to underlying groundwater by rainfall or irrigation practices. Additionally, salts in native 208 soils can be dissolved by irrigation water and leached to groundwater. For additional discussion see 209 Chapter 18 on Salt and Salinity Management. 210 Use of nitrogen fertilizers and discharges from onsite wastewater treatment systems and septic tank 211 systems often results in nitrate concentrations in groundwater that exceed drinking water standards. 212 Nitrate in groundwater has resulted in the closure of more public water wells statewide than any other 213 contaminant. Nitrate from agricultural fertilizer is the largest threat to groundwater quality in California, 214 particularly in the Central Valley growing areas. Wellhead treatment programs and blending with higher 215 quality water both are effective at protecting public supply well water quality. However, both can be 216 costly, particularly for lower income communities. Domestic wells are also often at risk from nitrate 217 contamination. Testing is not required of domestic wells, unlike public supply wells, so domestic well 218 owners are typically not aware of the quality of the water they consume. For additional discussion, see 219 Chapter 15 on Groundwater and Aquifer Remediation. 220 Recharge areas are those areas that provide the primary means of replenishing groundwater. Good natural 221 recharge areas are those where good quality surface water is able to percolate unimpeded to groundwater. 222 If recharge areas cease functioning properly, there may not be sufficient groundwater for storage or future 223 use. Protection of recharge areas requires a number of actions based on two primary goals. These goals 224 are (1) ensuring that areas suitable for recharge continue to be capable of adequate recharge rather than 225 covered by urban infrastructure, such as buildings and roads; and, (2) preventing pollutants from entering 226 groundwater in order to avoid expensive treatment that may be needed prior to potable, agricultural, or 227 industrial beneficial uses. 228 Protection of recharge areas is necessary if the quantity and quality of groundwater in the aquifer are to be 229 maintained. However, protecting recharge areas by itself does not provide a supply of water. Recharge 230 areas only function when aquifer storage capacity is available, and when regional and local governments 231 and agencies work together to protect or secure an adequate supply of good quality water to recharge the 232 aquifer. Climate change may alter precipitation and runoff patterns which will impact groundwater 233 recharge (see Climate Change section). Protecting existing and potential recharge areas allows them to 234 serve as valuable components of a conjunctive management and groundwater storage strategy. 235 Zoning can play a major role in recharge areas’ protection by amending land-use practices so that existing 236 recharge sites are retained as recharge areas. Some areas that would provide good rates of recharge have 237 been paved over or built upon and are no longer available to recharge the aquifer. Local governments 238 often lack a clear understanding of recharge areas and the need to protect those areas from development 239 or contamination. Land use zoning staff does not always recognize the need for recharge area protection 240 for water quantity and water quality. For further discussion, see Chapter 25, Recharge Areas Protection. 241 The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program was created by the State 17-6 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 242 Water Board in 2000. It was later expanded by Assembly Bill 599 – the Groundwater Quality Monitoring 243 Act of 2001. The main goals of GAMA are: to improve statewide groundwater monitoring and increase 244 the availability of groundwater quality information to the public. 245 There are four active GAMA projects: 246  Priority Basin Project (updated 7/16/10) 247  Domestic Well Project 248  Special Studies Project 249  GeoTracker GAMA 250 Major groundwater supply basins are a specific focus of the GAMA program. The legislatively mandated 251 program (AB 599) is funded by Proposition 50 and from special fund fees. 252 The GAMA Program is California's comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program. GAMA 253 collects data by testing the untreated, raw water in different types of wells for naturally-occurring and 254 man-made chemicals. GAMA compiles these test results with existing groundwater quality data from 255 several agencies into a publicly-accessible internet database, GeoTracker GAMA. Over 95 percent of 256 Californians get their drinking water from a public or municipal source - these supplies are typically 257 treated to ensure that the water is safe to drink. 258 Using CDPH data, there are an estimated 1.69 million residents in California that are served either by the 259 estimated 600,000 private domestic wells or by community water systems serving fewer than 15 service 260 connections. The CDPH does not regulate the quality of water from these sources. Those served by public 261 or municipal supplies should be concerned about groundwater quality too. About 40 percent of 262 Californians rely on groundwater for a portion of their drinking water. Contaminated groundwater results 263 in treatment costs, well closures, and new well construction which increases costs for consumers. A large 264 portion of California is in a semi-arid climate. Clean water is critical for society and the environment, and 265 also helps sustain business, industry, and agriculture. 266 Land Use Categories and Pollution Prevention 267 The State NPS Program addresses NPS pollution by promoting management measures (MMs) and 268 management practices (MPs) for each of the six separate land use categories: agriculture, urban, forestry 269 (silviculture), marinas and recreational boating, hydromodification, and wetlands. Management measures 270 serve as general goals for the control and prevention of polluted runoff. Site-specific MPs are then used to 271 achieve the goals of each management measure. Management practices refer to specific technologies, 272 processes, siting criteria, operating methods or other alternatives to control NPS pollution. 273 State Water Board and Regional Water Boards and CCC have developed and adopted successive, five- 274 year plans (NPS Implementation Plans) to implement the NPS Program Strategy. The NPS Strategy 275 focuses on the progress made in the NPS Program thus far, describes the additional regulatory, 276 educational, and financial tools made available to the Regional Water Boards, and identifies the need for 277 prioritizing resources and efforts. The goals of the current NPS Implementation Plan are similar to those 278 of the past five-year plans, with a closer focus on the following activities: 279  Implementing the Policy for the Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source 280 Pollution Control Program (NPS Implementation and Enforcement Policy) by the Regional California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-7  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 281 Water Boards, particularly through the Regional Water Boards use of regulatory tools; 282  Concentrating NPS resources on TMDL planning, assessment and implementation priorities, 283 and shifting these funds away from pollution prevention outreach; 284  Improve coordination and leveraging of resources with other funding organizations such as: 285 USDA (EQIP), State Water Board CWSRF, Department of Conservation (Watershed Program 286 Grants), Department of Water Resources (IRWM) and others; 287  Focusing overall efforts and resources on high priority watersheds and problems, as defined by 288 priority TMDLs and other region-specific problems; and 289  Acknowledging the balancing act required by State Water Board programs to both clean up 290 waters polluted by nonpoint sources and preserve clean waters. 291 In the next five years the State Water Board expects to have a fully integrated database of existing and 292 tested management measures and management practices, many success stories based on proper 293 implementation and maintenance of these measures and practices, well-established cleanup programs 294 based on actions taken pursuant to the NPS Implementation and Enforcement Policy, and an accurate 295 assessment of the remaining NPS pollution problems in the state. The NPS Program Strategy will be 296 updated by the State Water Board NPS Program after receiving new U.S. EPA Program Plan guidance, 297 which is due out in the Fall of 2012. The goal of this new guidance is to ensure a more cohesive and 298 consistent set of NPS Strategies and reporting requirements for all states. At this time, the State Water 299 Board will be well-positioned to take another long-term look at the future of NPS pollution cleanup 300 priorities. 301 The State Water Board has developed the NPS Encyclopedia to help practitioners choose management 302 practices for implementation. It is a free online reference guide designed to facilitate a basic 303 understanding of NPS pollution control and to provide quick access to essential information from a 304 variety of sources. This is done through hyperlinks to other resources available on the worldwide web. 305 The purpose of the NPS Encyclopedia is to support the implementation and development of the NPS 306 aspects of TMDLs and watershed action plans with a goal of protecting high quality waters and restoring 307 impaired waters. The companion tool, the NPS MP Miner, allows users to cull data from studies of 308 management practices, peer reviewed and otherwise, by filtering studies using relevant site-specific 309 variables, such as land use category, pollutant of concern, and removal efficiency required. Both tools are 310 available at the State Water Board Web site (SWRCB, 2009d). 311 Agriculture 312 Agricultural activities that cause NPS pollution can include poorly located or managed animal feeding 313 operations; overgrazing; plowing too often or at the wrong time; and improper, excessive, or poorly timed 314 application of pesticides, irrigation water, and fertilizer. Farm and ranching pollutants include sediment, 315 nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, metals and salts. To control NPS pollutants generated from this land use 316 category, agricultural MMs address: (1) erosion and sediment control; (2) facility wastewater and runoff 317 from confined animal facilities; (3) nutrient management; (4) pesticide application; (5) grazing 318 management; and (6) irrigation water management and (7) education and outreach. 319 Urban 320 Controlling polluted runoff in urban areas is a challenge. Negative impacts of urbanization on coastal and 17-8 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 321 estuarine waters are well documented in a number of publications, including California’s CWA Section 322 305(b) and Section 303(d) reports and the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Major pollutants found in 323 runoff from urban areas include sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, road salts, heavy 324 metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, plastics, pesticides, pathogenic bacteria, and viruses. In addition to 325 organic carbon and pathogens such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, suspended sediments constitute the 326 largest mass of pollutant loadings from urban areas into receiving waters. Construction is a major source 327 of sediment erosion. Petroleum hydrocarbons result mostly from automobile sources. Plastics (including 328 plastic bags and bottles) are mainly the result of urban runoff. Nutrient and bacterial sources include 329 garden fertilizers, leaves, grass clippings, pet wastes, homeless encampments, and faulty septic tanks. As 330 population densities increase, a corresponding increase occurs in trash and pollutant loadings generated 331 from human activities. Many of these pollutants enter surface waters via runoff without undergoing 332 treatment. To control NPS pollutants generated from this land use category, urban MMs address: (1) 333 runoff from developing areas; (2) runoff from construction sites; (3) runoff from existing development; 334 (4) septic tank systems; (5) transportation development (roads, highways, and bridges) and (6) education 335 and outreach. 336 Forestry (Silviculture) 337 Silviculture can contribute pollution to rivers and lakes in California. Without adequate controls, forestry 338 operations may degrade the characteristics of waters that receive drainage from forest lands. Sediment 339 concentrations can increase due to accelerated erosion, water temperatures can increase due to removal of 340 over-story riparian shade, dissolved oxygen can be depleted due to the accumulation of slash and other 341 organic debris, and concentrations of organic and inorganic chemicals can increase due to harvesting, 342 fertilizers, and pesticides. To control NPS pollutants generated from this land use category, forestry MMs 343 address: (1) preharvest planning; (2) streamside management areas; (3) road construction/reconstruction; 344 (4) road management; (5) timber harvesting; (6) site preparation/forest regeneration; (7) fire management; 345 (8) revegetation of disturbed areas; (9) forest chemical applications; (10) wetland forest management; 346 (11) postharvest evaluation and (12) education and outreach. 347 Marinas and Recreational Boating 348 Recreational boating and marinas are increasingly popular uses of coastal areas and inland surface water 349 bodies (e.g., lakes and San Francisco Bay-Delta), and an important means of public access to navigable 350 waterways. Therefore, California must balance the need for protecting the environment and the need to 351 provide adequate public access. Because marinas and boats are located at the water’s edge, pollutants 352 generated from these sources are less likely to be buffered or filtered by natural processes. When boating 353 and adjunct activities (e.g., those that take place at marinas and boat maintenance areas) are poorly 354 planned or managed, they may pose a threat to water quality and the health of aquatic systems. 355 Water quality issues associated with marinas and recreational boating include: 356  Poorly flushed waterways 357  Pollutants discharged from the normal operation of boats (recreational boats, commercial boats, 358 and “live-aboards”) 359  Pollutants carried in storm water runoff from marinas, ramps, and related facilities 360  Physical alteration of wetlands and of shellfish/other benthic communities during construction 361 of marinas, ramps, and related facilities California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-9  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 362  Pollutants generated from boat maintenance activities on land and in the water. 363  Dredging in marinas and boat maintenance areas. 364  Introductions of aquatic invasive species, both plant and animal, that degrade water quality, 365 ecosystem processes, and water infrastructure. 366 Common pollutants generated from marinas and recreational boating activities include: copper, bacteria 367 and pathogens, nutrients, aquatic and invasive species such as quagga mussels and Caulerpa taxifolia, and 368 oil and grease. To control NPS pollutants generated from this land use category, marina and recreational 369 boating MMs include: (1) marina facility assessment, siting, and design – water quality assessment, 370 marina flushing, habitat assessment, shoreline stabilization, storm water runoff, fueling station design, 371 sewage facilities, and waste management facilities,(2) operation and maintenance – solid waste control, 372 fish waste control, liquid material control, petroleum control, boat cleaning and maintenance, sewage 373 facility maintenance, and boat operations and (3) education and outreach. 374 Hydromodification 375 Hydromodifications that can impair water quality include: channel modification (channelization), flow 376 alterations, levees, and dams. Channel modification activities are undertaken in rivers or streams to 377 straighten, enlarge, deepen, or relocate the channel. These activities can affect water temperature, change 378 the natural supply of fresh water to a water body, and alter rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, 379 and deposition. Hardening the banks of waterways with shoreline protection or armor also accelerates the 380 movement of surface water and pollutants from the upper reaches of watersheds into coastal waters. 381 Channelization can also reduce the suitability of instream and streamside habitat for fish and wildlife by 382 depriving wetlands and estuarine shorelines of beneficially-enriching sediments, affecting the ability of 383 natural systems to filter pollutants, and interrupting the life stages of aquatic organisms. Dams can 384 adversely impact hydrology and the quality of surface waters and riparian habitat in the waterways where 385 the dams are located. A variety of impacts can result from the siting, construction, and operation of these 386 facilities. For example, improper siting of dams can inundate both upstream and downstream areas of a 387 waterway. Dams reduce downstream flows, thus depriving wetlands and riparian areas of water. During 388 dam construction or dredging, removal of vegetation and disturbance of underlying sediments can 389 increase turbidity and cause excessive sedimentation in the waterway. Further, metered flows from dams 390 fail to exert the forces that build and maintain channel structure and beneficial floodplain functions. 391 The erosion of shorelines and streambanks is a natural process that can have either beneficial or adverse 392 impacts on riparian habitat. Excessively high sediment loads resulting from erosion can smother 393 submerged aquatic vegetation, cover shellfish beds and tidal flats, fill in riffle pools, and contribute to 394 increased levels of turbidity and nutrients (USEPA, 2009a). To control NPS pollutants generated from 395 this land use category, hydromodification MMs address: (1) channelization-channel modification; (2) dam 396 construction and operation – erosion and sediment control and chemical pollutant control issues, and the 397 downstream impact of reservoir releases on riparian habitat; (3) streambank and shoreline erosion control 398 and (4) education and outreach. 399 Wetlands 400 Wetlands and riparian areas reduce polluted runoff and enhance water quality by filtering out runoff- 401 related contaminants, such as fine-grained sediment, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), and some 17-10 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 402 metals. Functional wetlands and riparian systems provide other services such as surface and groundwater 403 storage, flood control (with adequate set-backs), and storm surge attenuation. They also support valuable 404 wildlife and aquatic habitats. Highly modified wetlands and riparian systems are typically managed for a 405 few beneficial uses or services, are costly to maintain, and have questionable long-term sustainability. 406 Natural wetlands are self-sustaining when not adversely impacted by pollution. 407 Changes in hydrology, soil texture, water quantity, and/or species composition can impair the ability of 408 wetland or riparian areas to filter out excess sediment and nutrients and therefore can result in deteriorated 409 water quality. Wetlands and riparian areas may be impacted or destroyed by construction, filling, or other 410 alterations. Historically, significant losses of wetlands have been caused by draining wetland soils for 411 conversion to croplands, or dredging wetland soils for waterway navigation. Spongy wetland soils are 412 compacted by over-grazing and grading. Loss of wetland acreage increases polluted runoff, leading to 413 degradation of surface water quality. 414 To control NPS pollutants generated from this land use category, wetlands MMs address: (1) protection 415 of wetlands and riparian areas, (2) restoration of wetlands and riparian areas, (3) vegetated treatment 416 systems and (4) education and outreach. 417 Major Issues Facing Pollution Prevention 418 Irrigated Agriculture 419 Agricultural discharges including irrigation return flow, flows from tile drains, and storm water runoff 420 affect water quality by transporting pollutants such as pesticides, sediments, nutrients, salts (including 421 selenium and boron), pathogens, and heavy metals from cultivated fields into surface waters. Many 422 surface water bodies are impaired because of pollutants from agricultural sources. Groundwater bodies 423 have also suffered pesticide, nitrate, and salt contamination. Statewide, approximately 11,796 miles of 424 rivers/streams and some 488,457 acres of lakes/reservoirs are listed on the state’s impaired waters list as 425 being impaired by runoff from irrigated agriculture. Of these, approximately 1,700 miles, or 426 approximately 15%, have been identified as impaired by pesticides. 427 The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) regulates discharges from irrigated agricultural lands. Its 428 purpose is to prevent agricultural discharges from impairing the waters that receive the discharges. To 429 protect these waters, Regional Water Boards have issued conditional waivers of waste discharge 430 requirements to growers that contain conditions requiring water quality monitoring of receiving waters 431 and corrective actions when impairments are found. 432 To control and assess the effects of discharges from irrigated agricultural lands and implement TMDLs, 433 the Central Coast, Central Valley, Los Angeles, and San Diego Regional Water Boards have adopted 434 comprehensive conditional waivers of waste discharge requirements (WDRs). Growers must comply with 435 the conditions of the waiver in order to avoid direct regulation through issuance of individual WDRs. The 436 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Board had previously adopted a Conditional Prohibition as a 437 TMDL implementation plan incorporated into their Basin Plan to regulate irrigated agriculture. Currently 438 they are in the process of creating a Conditional Waiver. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board 439 staff is developing a Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Vineyard Facilities in the California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-11  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 440 Napa River and Sonoma Creek Watersheds (Vineyard Waiver) and is expected to complete public review 441 drafts of the Vineyard Waiver and accompanying environmental documents in the Spring of 2012. The 442 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is developing a Water Quality Compliance Program 443 for Discharges from Irrigated Lands to address water quality impacts associated with irrigated agricultural 444 lands in the North Coast Region. 445 An estimated 40,000 growers, who cultivate over 7 million acres, are subject to Regional Water Board 446 irrigated agriculture regulatory programs in these regions. These Regional Water Boards have made 447 significant strides to implement their irrigated agriculture regulatory programs and are committed to 448 continue their efforts to work with the agricultural community to protect and improve water quality. 449 Confined Animal Facilities 450 California has approximately 1,700 dairies with an average size of about 800 milk cows. There are also 451 several hundred feedlots, poultry operations, and other animal feeding operations (AFOs) in the state. 452 California regulations refer to these operations, including concentrated animal feeding operations 453 (CAFOs), as "confined animal facilities" (CAFs). The exact number of facilities in California that are 454 large or medium CAFOs based on animal populations is unknown, but is estimated at between 1,000 and 455 1,200. 456 Most of the commercial CAFs are within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Board, 457 including over 80 percent of the dairies. There are also about 140 dairies and feedlots in the Santa Ana 458 Region, and about 200 dairies (mostly smaller facilities with less than 300 milk cows) in the North Coast 459 and San Francisco Bay Regions. Each Regional Water Board develops its own regulatory program for 460 CAFs. 461 Dairies and feedlots in the Santa Ana Region and in the Colorado River Basin operate under general 462 NPDES permits that require preparation of an engineered waste management plan. Most dairies in the 463 Central Valley Region are regulated under General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R5- 464 2007-0035, but some are under an individual WDR order or another general order. In March 2012, the 465 North Coast Regional Water Board adopted a general WDR Order, a general NPDES permit, and a 466 waiver program to regulate dairies in that region. Other regions use individual WDR orders or waivers to 467 regulate their AFOs. 468 The permitted facilities pay an annual fee that is based on animal population and ranges from $357 to 469 over $7,000 plus a surcharge to support the State Water Board's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring 470 Program (SWAMP). Most of the WDR orders require the dairies to develop and implement nutrient 471 management plans and to submit annual reports. In the Central Valley Region, dairies are also required to 472 test on-site wells and to monitor groundwater, either individually or as part of a coalition. 473 Urban Impacts 474 Urban storm water runoff washes pollutants such as nutrients (lawn fertilizers and pet wastes), sediment, 475 oxygen-demanding substances, roads salts, pesticides, oil and grease, heavy metals, organic chemicals, 476 human pathogens, petroleum hydrocarbons, and debris (especially plastics and plastic particulates) from 477 city streets and other hard surfaces into surface waters (including beaches). Suspended sediments 17-12 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 478 constitute the largest mass of pollutant loadings to receiving waters from urban areas. Construction is a 479 major source of sediment erosion. Petroleum hydrocarbons result mostly from automobile sources. 480 Nutrient and bacterial sources include garden fertilizers, leaves, grass clippings, pet wastes, and faulty 481 septic tanks. As population densities increase, a corresponding increase occurs in pollutant loadings 482 generated from human activities. Many of these pollutants enter surface waters via runoff without 483 undergoing treatment. 484 Urban runoff management requires that several objectives be pursued simultaneously. These objectives 485 include the following (American Public Works Association, 1981): 486  • Protection and restoration of surface waters by the minimization of pollutant loadings and 487 negative impacts resulting from urbanization; 488  • Protection of environmental quality and social well-being; 489  • Protection of natural resources, e.g., wetlands and other important aquatic and terrestrial 490  ecosystems; 491  • Minimization of soil erosion and sedimentation problems; 492  • Maintenance of the predevelopment hydrologic conditions; 493  • Protection of ground water resources; 494  • Control and management of runoff to reduce or prevent flooding; and 495  • Management of aquatic and riparian resources for active and passive recreation. 496 Natural Impacts and Legacy Pollutants 497 Arsenic, asbestos, radon, minerals, and sometimes microbes and sediment are examples of naturally 498 occurring contaminants for which a pollution prevention approach is infeasible. Furthermore, some 499 contaminants that are of concern specifically for drinking water, such as organic carbon from watershed 500 runoff, and bromide—a component of ocean salinity, are a result of natural processes for which a 501 pollution prevention approach is not possible. While there are natural sources of organic carbon, 502 agriculture drainage, urban runoff, and wastewater discharges typically contain higher concentrations than 503 natural runoff. 504 Abandoned mines and former industrial and commercial sites, such as gas stations and dry cleaning 505 operations, often leave behind contamination problems without a clear link to any legally responsible or 506 financially viable party or entity to pay for cleanup. The State and federal governments and potentially 507 responsible parties often wind up in extensive regulatory and legal proceedings determining legal and 508 financial responsibility while the contaminants remain, perhaps continuing to migrate off-site. 509 Emerging Issues 510 Traditionally, water agencies focus on pathogens (disease-causing microorganisms), chemicals, and 511 disinfectant byproducts (potential cancer-causing contaminants), that are regulated or will be regulated in 512 the near future. Recently, though, other unregulated chemicals and pollutants are being discovered to have 513 unexpected health and environmental effects. Chemicals found in pharmaceuticals and personal care 514 products (PPCPs), byproducts of fires and fire suppression, and discarded elements of nanotechnology are 515 emerging as actual or potential water contaminants. Air deposition of a whole host of pollutants is now 516 seen as a significant contributor to water pollution. Some of these emerging pollutants have not yet been 517 subject to rigorous assessment or regulatory action. Although California has not established state-wide 518 standards or effluent limits for unregulated compounds including pharmaceuticals or emerging California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-13  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 519 contaminants, and absent of federal- or state-established numeric standards, the state has a mechanism for 520 establishing site-specific discharge effluent limits and/or receiving water NPDES permit limitation. Each 521 Regional Water Board in California has a water quality control plan or Basin Plan that presents the water 522 quality objectives and criteria for surface and groundwater for the region. These water quality objectives 523 may be narrative or numeric. Narrative water quality objectives take into consideration concerns such as 524 nuisance and toxicity that may adversely affect beneficial uses of surface and groundwater. For example, 525 the narrative water quality objective for toxicity is “All water shall be maintained free of toxic substances 526 in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, 527 animal or aquatic life.” To address the narrative water quality objective, a site-specific, numeric effluent 528 limitation for a compound may be established based on readily available information for the discharge 529 and studies on human and environmental effects. 530 Institutional barriers can contribute to the difficulty of addressing pollution from uncontrolled runoff, 531 especially as the State moves towards a broader watershed approach to pollution prevention and 532 regulatory action. Various State, local and federal agencies have divided jurisdiction over groundwater 533 versus surface waters, polluted runoff versus point source discharges, water quantity versus water quality 534 issues, and even over monitoring and assessing pollutants. These various “stovepipes” of regulatory 535 authority can hamper the more holistic watershed approach to water quality management, and will need to 536 be addressed in the coming years. Management and regulation of water quality in California is 537 fragmented among at least eight State and federal agencies, with no one agency looking after water 538 quality from source to tap. For example, the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards regulate 539 ambient water quality, while the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) primarily regulates 540 treatment and distribution of potable water. Further, surface water storage and conveyance in California is 541 mostly managed by the Department of Water Resources and the US Bureau of Reclamation, while 542 groundwater is usually not managed in a coordinated manner at all. Moreover, serving drinking water to 543 Californians is an obligation of cities, water districts, and private water companies that were generally not 544 formed in any comprehensive pattern. 545 Efforts to coordinate, collaborate and leverage various agency authorities towards improvements of water 546 quality in California have been initiated and will need to continue in order to alleviate these institutional 547 barriers. The State Water Board is preparing an amendment to the Recycled Water Policy to include 548 monitoring requirements for constituents of emerging concern (CECs) in recycled water for indirect 549 potable reuse (groundwater recharge of a drinking water aquifer). To assess the aquatic life impacts of 550 pharmaceutical discharges, the State has recently contracted for research in development and evaluation 551 of bioanalytical screening or bioassay techniques for potential application in recycled water monitoring. 552 The goal is to develop high throughput bioassays for the screening of compounds for specific biological 553 target activities (e.g., endocrine disruption, etc.). 554 Finally, the diffuse nature of NPS pollution and the need to control sources on private and public land 555 adds to the difficulties of instituting pollution prevention measures. 556 Climate Change 557 Pollution Prevention (RMS 17) 17-14 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 558 Climate Change 559 Climate change may exacerbate concentrations of pollutants in rivers and lakes from multiple sources. 560 Higher temperatures will cause more algal blooms, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and decreased fil- 561 tering capacity. Storm events following forest fires may result in increased desposition of pollutants in 562 waterways. Also, pesticide application may increase as more pests survive warmer and drier winter 563 conditions. . In the urban environment,the projected stronger storms may also overwhelm urban 564 stormwater systems, leading to additional dispersion of pollutants urban waterways. 565 566 Adaptation 567 New standards for land use and development, such as fewer impervious surfaces, more onsite use of 568 rainwater, and more vegetated areas should reduce the amount of pollution in populated areas. Forest 569 management techniques, such as small biomass removal, and integrated pest management practices 570 can also reduce the likelihood of catastrophic fires and increased pesticide use to combat pest infesta- 571 tions. Another adaptation measure may include higher levels of treatment for discharges into rivers and 572 lakes. In the agricultural sector, reduced application of nitrogen-based fertilizers could advance adapta- 573 tion by keeping groundwater aquifer water quality adequate for use. 574 575 Mitigation 576 Vehicles are one of the major mobile (non-point) sources of pollution. Shifts to reduce vehicle use and 577 away from gasoline-fueled vehicles may reduce the volume of pollutants entering waterways. Fewer 578 pollutants could result in reduced water treatment needs, which would mean less energy usage and 579 fewer GHG emissions. Increased regulation of stationary sources of pollution may result in higher ener- 580 gy usage for treatment, but could provide water quality benefits that mean less treatment before use or 581 discharge. 582 Mitigation 583 Content is under development. 584 Adaptation 585 It is widely recognized that changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will impact water 586 availability and quality. Higher air temperatures lead to increases in water demand and changes in 587 hydrologic conditions, resulting in drought and greater threats of wildfires, and reduced snowpack, earlier 588 snowmelt, and a rise in sea level that may cause more seawater intrusion which will in turn affect low 589 lying coastal infrastructure. Also, higher water temperatures reduce dissolved oxygen levels, which can 590 have an adverse effect on aquatic life. Where river and lake levels fall, there will be less dilution of 591 pollutants; however, increased frequency and intensity of rainfall will produce more pollution and 592 sedimentation due to runoff. In addition, more frequent and intense rainfall may overwhelm pollution California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-15  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 593 control facilities that have been designed to handle sewage and storm water runoff under assumptions 594 anchored in historical rainfall patterns. 595 Water quality impairments are especially critical as droughts and expected increases in the impacts of 596 climate change further limit water supplies. Changes in hydrology, such as reduced snow pack and earlier 597 snowmelt, result in less natural water storage and more difficulties managing reservoirs and reservoir 598 releases to maintain river temperatures that are cool enough for anadromous fish. Moreover, lower 599 groundwater tables resulting from less recharge and/or more extractions can reduce or eliminate base flow 600 in creeks, severely affecting aquatic habitat, as well as lead to catastrophic subsidence. The condition of 601 California’s fish populations reveals the need for action. Currently, 34 fish species are listed as threatened 602 or endangered in California, including coastal and Central Valley runs of steelhead, spring-run and 603 winter-run Central Valley Chinook salmon, a central coast population of Coho salmon, Delta smelt, three 604 species from the Colorado River, and several species from the Klamath Basin and southern deserts. 605 Consequently, to ensure a reliable water supply and adequate aquatic habitat, California must manage 606 water in ways that protect water supply and protect and restore the environment. 607 The State Water Board has committed to enhancing and encouraging sustainability within the 608 administration of Water Board programs and activities by promoting water management strategies such as 609 low impact development, considering the impacts of climate change in our decision-making, and 610 coordinating with governmental, non-profit, and private industry and business partners to further 611 strategies for sustainability. 612 Monitoring and Assessment 613 California Senate Bill 1070 was enacted to better orchestrate the many water quality monitoring efforts 614 already in progress within the state, and to make that process more visible to the user population and to 615 the entities committed to the protection, monitoring and supply of water to all its users. It provides for the 616 creation of a structure to allow the public to access any available water quality data, current methods and 617 research, as well as current regulations and enforcement actions. The bill also creates a California Water 618 Quality Monitoring Council (CWQMC) to connect the myriad activities throughout the state in a more 619 cohesive and sensible manner, with the ability to provide direction to reduce redundancies, prioritize 620 actions and recommend funding necessary to give the critical information necessary to protect 621 California’s water. This bill specifically addresses Recommendation 3 of the California Water Plan 622 Update of 2005. 623 The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) is a statewide monitoring effort that 624 provides the scientifically sound data we need to effectively manage California’s water resources. 625 “Ambient” monitoring refers to the collection of information about the status of the physical, chemical 626 and biological characteristics of the environment. The State Water Board and the Regional Water Boards 627 introduced SWAMP in 2001. The program’s purpose is to monitor and assess water quality to determine 628 whether we are meeting water quality standards and protecting beneficial uses. Data from SWAMP are 629 used to improve the state’s water quality assessment and impaired water bodies list, required under CWA 630 Sections 305(b) and 303(d), respectively. 631 The Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) is the Central Coast’s regional component of 632 SWAMP. CCAMP plays a key role in assessing Central Coast regional goals and has a number of 17-16 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 633 program objectives: (1) assess watershed condition on a five-year rotational basis, using multiple 634 indicators of health; (2) assess long-term water quality trends at the lower ends of coastal creeks; (3) 635 conduct periodic assessments of harbors, estuaries, lakes, and near-shore waters using multiple indicators 636 of health; and (4) support investigations of other water quality problems, including emerging 637 contaminants, sea otter health, pathogenic disease, toxic algal blooms and others. 638 In 2004, California Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP) for wadeable perennial streams was 639 initiated. This program builds on USEPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program using a 640 probabilistic monitoring design incorporating land use classes to allow for assessments of status and 641 trends in aquatic life beneficial use protection in streams. Historic EMAP data were analyzed to produce 642 assessments of the condition of streams statewide and in special study areas in northern and southern 643 coastal California. Several assessments will also be completed focusing on providing water quality 644 information statewide, and for the broad land use categories such as urban, agriculture, and forested areas. 645 Based upon the highly extrapolative nature of this program, practitioners with intimate familiarity with 646 specific water body conditions have questioned the sensitivity of this approach to identifying barriers to 647 migration, which cause impairment to anadromous fish populations in water bodies displaying generally 648 good water quality. These efforts directly relate to recommendation 3 of this strategy in the 2005 649 California Water Plan and can be seen as some success in responding to this recommendation. 650 CMAP conducted a sampling effort in 2007. The Perennial Streams Survey was initiated in 2008. This 651 effort, and expansion of CMAP, is aimed at developing a coordinated and comprehensive statewide 652 monitoring design that would integrate bioassessment efforts currently funded through the State’s 653 SWAMP and the NPS Programs with existing local and regional bioassessment efforts. A key feature of 654 the design would be to identify relationships between land-use stressors and response. 655 Wastewater Infrastructure Needs 656 While great strides have been made in providing treatment of wastewater before discharge to surface 657 waters, much of the wastewater treatment infrastructure has exceeded its useful life expectancy. Without 658 continued upgrade and replacement, the failure rates of wastewater treatment facilities could increase, 659 thereby degrading the surface waters that receive the effluent from these facilities. 660 With changes in streamflow patterns predicted with climate change, the historic assimilative capacity of 661 streams with respect to wastewater discharges would need to be re-evaluated. Treatment processes may 662 need to be upgraded to more advanced levels. In addition, advances in our knowledge of the impacts of 663 emerging contaminants may necessitate more implementation of more advanced treatment processes. 664 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) 665 The use of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS), including septic tanks and leachfields, can be 666 an effective means of treating and disposing of domestic wastewater. However, improper siting of OWTS 667 and other factors can lead to public health and environmental impacts, including direct human exposure to 668 domestic waste and degradation of ground water and surface water quality. To address these issues, 669 Assembly Bill (AB) 885 (Wat. Code § 13290) was passed by the California State Legislature and signed 670 into law in September 2000. Under AB 885, the State Water Board is required to adopt regulations or 671 standards for the operation of OWTS. The State Water Board has drafted a new policy to meet this legal California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-17  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 672 mandate. The new policy was adopted by the State Water Board in June 2012. The policy is designed to 673 ensure that surface waters and ground waters are not contaminated by septic systems and waters in 674 California are safe for beneficial uses. 675 Costs Associated with Pollution Prevention 676 The 2012 Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) official data collection period began January 9, 2012 and 677 will continue through the October 26, 2012 data submittal deadline. January through December 2012, 678 USEPA will be reviewing data provided by the states. USEPA will host a CWNS 2012 End of Survey 679 Meeting in Washington, DC in the spring of 2013. USEPA will deliver the CWNS 2012 Report to 680 Congress and provide data to the public via the USEPA website in late 2013. 681 According to the 2008 USEPA CWNS, California has more than $21 billion of needs to prevent both 682 point source and NPS pollution. (USEPA, 2009b) This survey, though, emphasized point source 683 discharges, which represented more than $20 billion of the needs, and likely underestimated the cost of 684 measures to adequately prevent NPS pollution. An assessment of water quality conditions in California 685 shows that NPS pollution has the greatest effect on water quality. It affects some of the largest economic 686 segments of the state’s economy, from agricultural development and management to the tourist industry. 687 As previously discussed, nonpoint sources are not readily controlled by conventional means. Instead, they 688 are controlled with preventive plans and practices used by those directly involved in those activities and 689 by those overseeing such activities. The following examples provide some insight into the complexity and 690 costs associated with NPS pollution prevention in California. 691 Clean Beaches 692 Runoff from urban areas can contain heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, trash, plastics and 693 animal and human waste.(Heal the Bay, 2009) This urban runoff can have a detrimental impact on one of 694 California’s greatest natural and economic resources, its world-renowned beaches. This natural resource 695 attracts millions of tourists and locals alike each year. The direct revenues generated by the California 696 beach economy amounted to nearly $12 billion in 2004. (NOEP, 2009) Unfortunately, runoff from creeks, 697 rivers, and storm drains creates the largest source of water pollution for the beaches. Often the currents in 698 the bays, around offshore islands, and along sections of the coast can exacerbate pollution by trapping or 699 directing pollutant to a particular area along the coast. Some stretches of beaches in Southern California 700 are permanently posted by local health departments as unsafe for swimming and surfing, or periodically 701 posted after storm events. It is recommended that no one swim in the ocean during and for at least three 702 days after a significant rain event because of contaminated urban storm water runoff draining directly into 703 the ocean. During dry weather, California beaches experience much better water quality, although sewer 704 spills that result in beach closures and other sources of pollution exist year-round. 705 In response to protecting the state’s beach resources, the governor identified $32.3 million of grant 706 funding in the 2001 state budget to help fund the Clean Beaches Initiative (CBI). The water quality goal 707 of the CBI is to make beaches safe for recreational ocean water contact. The projects being funded 708 through the CBI include storm water diversions to wastewater treatment plants, storm water treatment 709 systems, the implementation of best management practices that reduce the amount of urban runoff 710 reaching the beaches, and source identification studies to identify potential projects. Since 2001, the CBI 17-18 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 711 program has funded approximately 97 projects totaling about $92 million. In addition, $37 million of 712 Prop. 84 funds has been allocated to the CBI program and will be available for projects through 2013. The 713 beaches are located from the Monterey Bay (Pacific Grove) to just north of the US-Mexico border 714 (Imperial Beach). 715 Diverting storm water away from Southern California beaches has historically cost approximately 716 $500,000 to more than $1 million per project. However, such diversions are extremely effective in 717 reducing bacterial levels in the water, as well as other pollutants associated with urban runoff. A success 718 story is the Santa Monica Bay beaches in Los Angeles County. Some beaches on the bay were either 719 permanently posted or regularly posted until many of the storm water drains were diverted to a nearby 720 wastewater treatment facility. After the diversions, beaches near the Santa Monica Pier are now off the 721 permanently posted list and are only rarely posted. The beaches on the bay can get well over a million 722 visitors over the course of a summer weekend. This level of visitation implies a high level of direct and 723 indirect economic benefits gained by the beach community and high indirect economic benefits 724 experienced by surrounding areas. 725 California beaches are an important environmental and economic resource for the state and the Nation. 726 Efforts such as the CBI to fund storm water diversions and other water quality improvement projects are 727 creating benefits that are likely to far outweigh their costs. 728 Irrigated Agriculture 729 Some costs to address NPS pollution control needs associated with agricultural activities are related to 730 croplands, such as plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. Some 731 examples of management practices (MPs) used to address these needs are conservation tillage, nutrient 732 management, and irrigation water management. Other costs are associated with rangeland management, 733 including rotation, revegetation, and riparian exclosure fencing. Cost updates to follow. 734 Confined Animal Facilities 735 The permitted facilities pay an annual fee that is based on animal population and ranges from $357 to 736 over $7,000 plus a surcharge to support the State Water Board's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring 737 Program (SWAMP). Most of the WDR orders require the dairies to develop and implement nutrient 738 management plans and to submit annual reports. In the Central Valley Region, dairies are also required to 739 test on-site wells and to monitor groundwater, either individually or as part of a coalition. 740 Benefits Associated with Pollution Prevention 741 For the vast majority of contaminants, it is generally accepted that a pollution prevention approach to 742 water quality is more cost-effective than end-of-the-pipe treatment of wastes, or advanced domestic water 743 treatment for drinking water. Pollution prevention measures are usually more cost-effective because they 744 have lower initial capital costs, as well as less ongoing operations and maintenance costs including lower 745 energy needs to clean up polluted water, than traditional engineered treatment systems. By preventing 746 further degradation of water through pollution prevention we see overall improvement of water quality 747 over time in both surface and groundwater. Pollution prevention can be considered in the context of California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-19  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 748 adaptation, while pollution treatment is generally associated with mitigation. 749 Pollution prevention activities such as stormwater runoff and low impact development (see the Urban 750 Runoff Management resource management strategy) can reduce or maintain the peak runoff from 751 urbanized areas such that they can meet the channel capacity of the natural system without the need for 752 new manmade protection structures. 753 Small rural water systems, which generally lack technical and financial capacities, may be more reliant 754 upon pollution prevention measures than other options available to larger systems, such as advanced 755 treatment. When surface water is polluted the only other available source is groundwater. Therefore, 756 preventing pollution of surface water keeps options for water supply open which is especially important 757 in areas where the groundwater resources may already be in overdraft. 758 By protecting the quality of surface water and near-shore coastal waters this management strategy 759 provides multiple benefits or uses by providing opportunities for water contact recreation, as well as 760 serving as a water source for desalination plants, and maintaining suitable habitat for wildlife. 761 Recommendations for Pollution Prevention 762 1. Pollution prevention and management of water quality impairments should be based on a wa- 763 tershed approach. A watershed-based approach adds value, reduces cost, promotes cross-media, 764 and integrates programmatic and regional strategies. 765 2. The Department of Water Resources should collaborate with the State Water Board to integrate 766 the Basin Plans and other statewide water quality control plans and policies into a comprehen- 767 sive Water Quality Element of the Water Plan. 768 3. The CWQMC should include a focus on emerging, unregulated contaminants in order to pro- 769 vide an early warning system of future water quality problems, as well as identify trends in wa- 770 ter quality using multiple indicators of health. Drinking water supplies should have outcome- 771 based monitoring, such as bio-monitoring and waterborne disease outbreak surveillance. The 772 proposed Interagency Water Quality Program would be modeled after the existing Interagency 773 Ecological Program. The groundwater portion of this effort should be consistent with the rec- 774 ommendations of the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001 and DWR’s Bulletin 118, 775 while the surface water aspects should be coordinated with the State Water Board’s Surface 776 Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 777 4. Regional, Tribal, and local governments and agencies should establish drinking water source 778 and wellhead protection programs to shield drinking water sources and groundwater recharge 779 areas from contamination. These source protection programs should then be incorporated into 780 local land use plans and policies. 781 5. Identify communities that rely on groundwater contaminated by anthropogenic sources as their 782 drinking water source, and take appropriate regulatory or enforcement action against the re- 783 sponsible party. Address improperly destroyed, abandoned, or sealed wells in these communi- 784 ties that may serve as potential pathways for contaminants to reach groundwater. 785 6. The State should prioritize grant funding for source water protection activities, including build- 786 ing institutional capacity for watershed planning, pollution prevention outreach, and wastewater 787 treatment facilities. 17-20 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 788 Pollution Prevention in the Water Plan 789 This is a new heading for Update 2013. If necessary, this section will discuss the ways the resource 790 management strategy is treated in this chapter, in the regional reports and in the sustainability 791 indicators. If the three mentions aren’t consistent, the reason for the conflict will be discussed (i.e., the 792 regional reports are emphasizing a different aspect of the strategy). If the three mentions are consistent 793 with each other (or if the strategy isn’t discussed in the rest of Update 2013), there is no need for this 794 section to appear.] 795 References 796 For Update 2013, the “References” section will have the following subheadings: “References Cited” (for 797 references that have in-text citations), “Additional References” (for additional materials that either the 798 author consulted but did not cite or that readers may appreciate generally), and “Personal 799 Communications” (for personal communications that you have documented using the form for that 800 purpose; if you have not documented such communications, just use attribution in the narrative and do 801 not include an entry in the bibliography). For now, the references provided for Update 2009 have been 802 placed under the “References Cited” subhead. If they are no longer cited in the text after the text has 803 been updated for 2013, place them under the “Additional References” subheading instead or delete them 804 altogether. In general, legal references (statutes, codes, acts, etc.) do not need to be included within this 805 section and can instead be described within the narrative above. Additional guidance on references and 806 citations is contained within California Water Plan Update 2013: Publications Process and Style Guide, 807 available from volume leads.] 808 References Cited 809 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 131. 810 [AB 599]. Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001. Statutes 2001, chapter 522. (2001). 811 [AB 885]. Onsite sewage treatment systems. Statutes 2000, chapter 781. Water Code, section 13290 et 812 seq. (2000). 813 [Antidegradation Policy]. State Water Resources Control Board Statement of Policy with Respect to 814 Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. Resolution No. 68-16 (1968). 815 CALFED Bay-Delta Program. Water Quality Program Plan. [Internet]. 2000. Jul. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. 816 Available at: http://www.calwater.ca.gov/index.aspx 817 California Coastal Commission. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: 818 http://www.coastal.ca.gov 819 California Coastal Commission. Water Quality Program Statewide Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program 820 Information. [Internet]. 2009. Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 821 http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/npsndx.html#NPS California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-21  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 822 California Department of Public Health. Chemical contaminants in drinking water. [Internet]. 2009. 823 [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 824 http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Chemicalcontaminants.aspx 825 California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s groundwater update 2003. Sacramento 826 (CA): California Department of Water Resources. (Bulletin 118). 246 p. Available at: 827 http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/update2003/ 828 California Water and Land Use Partnership (CA WALUP). [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available 829 at: http://cawalup.urbanocean.org/index.php?title=Main_Page 830 California Water Quality Monitoring Council. [Internet]. 2012. Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2012 May]. 831 Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/mywaterquality/ 832 [CBI]. Clean Beaches Initiative. Props. 13, 40, 50 and 84 provided funding for CBI grants. 833 Center for Water and Land Use. [Internet]. 2009. Davis (CA): University of California, Davis Extension. 834 [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 835 http://extension.ucdavis.edu/unit/center_for_water_and_land_use/ 836 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ag Waiver Program. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 837 Nov 16]. Available at: 838 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml 839 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP). 840 [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: http://www.ccamp.org/ 841 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Food Safety and Water Quality Issues. [Internet]. 842 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: 843 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/food_safety.shtml 844 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. [Internet]. 845 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: 846 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/irrigated_lands/ 847 Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board. Basin Plan Prohibitions and TMDLs for 848 agricultural discharges. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: 849 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/coloradoriver/public_notices/ 850 [CVRWQCB]. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2007. Waste discharge 851 requirements general order for existing milk cow dairies. Adopted 2007 May 3. Sacramento 852 (CA): California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Order No. R5- 853 2007-0035. Available at: 854 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/index.shtml#r5- 855 2007-0035 17-22 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 856 [CWA]. federal Clean Water Act. Title 33 United States Code section 1251 et seq. (1972). 857 Environmental Protection Indicators for California (EPIC). [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. 858 Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/aboutepic.html 859 Heal the Bay. 2009. Beach Report Card. [Internet]. Santa Monica (CA): Heal the Bay. [cited: 2009 Dec]. 860 Available at: http://www.healthebay.org/brcv2/ 861 Interagency Coordinating Committee. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 16]. Available at: 862 http://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/iacc.html 863 Klasing, S; Brodberg, R. 2008. Development of fish contaminant goals and advisory tissue levels for 864 common contaminants in California sport fish: chlordane, ddts, dieldrin, methylmercury, PCBs, 865 selenium, and toxaphene. 2008 Jun. Sacramento (CA): California Environmental Protection 866 Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 100 p. Available at: 867 http://www.oehha.ca.gov/fish/gtlsv/pdf/FCGsATLs27June2008.pdf 868 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Ag Waiver Program. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 869 Nov 16]. Available at: 870 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/index.shtml 871 National NEMO Network. [Internet]. 2009. Haddam (CT): University of Connecticut. [cited: 2009 Dec]. 872 Available at: http://nemonet.uconn.edu/ 873 [NOEP]. National Ocean Economics Program. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 874 http://www.oceaneconomics.org/ 875 [OEHHA]. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Development of a Set of Impervious 876 Surface Coefficients: A Tool for Watershed Analysis. [Internet]. 2007. [updated: 2007 Jan 877 30;cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/ecotox/isc031006.html 878 [OEHHA]. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Safe Eating Guidelines. [Internet]. 2009. 879 Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 880 http://www.oehha.ca.gov/fish/so_cal/index.html 881 Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (NPS 882 Implementation and Enforcement Policy). SB 227. Water Code, sections 13369 et seq. (1999). 883 [Prop. 84]. The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal 884 Protection Bond Act of 2006. Legislative initiative (AB 2406) approved by voters. Public 885 Resources Code, section 75001 et. seq. (2006). 886 Protection of Environment. 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 125.62 (2002). 887 [SB 1070]. Water quality information. Statutes 2006, chapter 750. (2005). California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-23  Volume 3. Resource Management Strategies 888 State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. A comprehensive groundwater quality monitoring program 889 for California (AB 599. Report to the Governor and Legislature). Sacramento (CA): State Water 890 Resources Control Board. 59 p. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/gama/ab599.shtml 891 State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. California 305(b) report on water quality 2002. [Internet]. 892 Sacramento (CA): State Water Resources Control Board. [cited: 2009 Dec]. 168 p. Available at: 893 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/305b.shtml 894 State Water Resources Control Board. 2008. Nonpoint Source Encyclopedia. [Internet]. Sacramento 895 (CA): State Water Resources Control Board. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 896 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia.shtml 897 State Water Resources Control Board; California Environmental Protection Agency; California Coastal 898 Commission. 2000. v. 1 Nonpoint source program strategy and implementation plan, 1998-2013. 899 Sacramento (CA): State Water Resources Control Board. Available at: 900 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/protecting.shtml 901 State Water Resources Control Board; California Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Policy for 902 implementation and enforcement of the nonpoint source pollution control program. Final 2004 903 May 20. Available at: 904 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/oalfinalcopy052604.doc 905 State Water Resources Control Board; Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 2008. Strategic plan 906 update, 2008-2012. 2008 Sep 7. Sacramento (CA): State Water Resources Control Board. 41 p. 907 Available at: 908 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/strategic_plan/docs/final_draft_strategic 909 _plan_update_090208.pdf 910 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board; Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program 911 (SWAMP). AB 982. Water Code, sections 13191 and 13192 (1999). Available at: 912 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/ 913 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control Program, 914 NPS Implementation Tools. [Internet]. 2009d. Runoff/Stormwater Program, Polluted Runoff 915 (NPS) Section, on the Tools webpage. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 916 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ 917 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board. Total Maximum Daily Load Program, section 303 (d) 918 policy development. [Internet]. 2009b. Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 919 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_listing.shtml 920 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board. Total Maximum Daily Load Program, California’s 921 2009 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. [Internet]. 2012a. 922 Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2012 May]. Available at: 923 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml 17-24 | California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited]  Chapter 17. Pollution Prevention 924 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board. GAMA – Groundwater Ambient Monitoring & 925 Assessment Program. [Internet]. 2012b. Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2012 May]. Available at: 926 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/gama/ 927 [SWRCB]. State Water Resources Control Board. The California Water Boards' Annual Performance 928 Report - Fiscal Year 2010-11. [Internet]. 2012c. Sacramento (CA). [cited: 2012 May]. Available 929 at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about_us/performance_report_1011/ 930 US Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 931 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 932 http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm 933 US Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 934 Animal Feeding Operations. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 935 http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7 936 US Geological Survey. National Water Quality Assessment Program. [Internet]. 2009. [cited: 2009 Nov 937 16]. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ 938 [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. 2005. Protecting 939 Water Quality from Agricultural Runoff. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection 940 Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch. 2 p. EPA 841-F-05-001. Available at: 941 http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Ag_Runoff_Fact_Sheet.pdf 942 [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009a. National water quality inventory: report to 943 Congress 2004 reporting cycle. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency. 43 p. 944 EPA 841-R-08-001. Available at: 945 http://www.epa.gov/owow/305b/2004report/2004_305Breport.pdf 946 [USEPA]. US Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS). [Internet]. 947 2009b. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency. [cited: 2009 Dec]. Available at: 948 http://www.epa.gov/cwns 949 Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act. Public Resources Code, section 4511 et seq. (1973). 950 Additional References 951 952 Personal Communications 953 954 California Water Plan Update 2013 — Advisory Committee Draft [Unedited] | 17-25