Download 1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
In the Matter
of the Petitions
of
BOARD
1
1
FRIENDS OF THE SEA OTTER AND
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
ORDER
1
NO. WQ 90-I
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
For Review of Orders Nos. 88-09 and
88-183 of the California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Central
Coast Region, NPDES Permit No.
Our Files Nos. A-595 and
CA0049280.
A-595(b).
1
BY THE BOARD:
On November
Quality
Control
adopted
Orders
waste
discharge
effluent
plant.
18, 1988, the California
Board,
Central
Coast
Region
Nos. 88-09 and 88-183.
requirements
in a waiver
of treated
Order No. 88-09, the Regional
Board
concurred
Protection
Section
1251 et seq.
Department
No. 88-09 contains
treatment
301(h)
No. 88-09.
Board),
owned
Section
and desist
Water
publicly
of secondary
Environmental
(Regional
for the ocean discharge
from the City of Watsonville's
In issuing
Order
Regional
treatment
Agency
of the federal
requirements
(EPA), as authorized
Clean Water
Order No. 88-183
from discharging
Petitioners,
wastewater
Friends
of Fish and Game
by the federal
Act,
directs
33 U.S.C.
the City to cease
in violation
of the Sea Otter
(Department),
under
of Order
and the
filed timely
petitions
for review
challenge
of Orders
the Regional
that the criteria
requirements
88-09 and 88-183.l
Nos.
Board's
actions
for a waiver
the federal
wastewater
except
Elimination
System
1342.
Water
Resources
with
Control
sources
addition,
assure
Code
these permits
include
by EPA.
waters
any more
with
Control
are issued
by the State
and !the nine
Boards,
See id. Section
the discharge
through
in accordance
1342(b);
stringent
receiving
of pollutants
the application
The permits
requirements.
state and federal
Discharge
13370 et seq.
regulate
treatment
may
of the United
Pollutant
(State Board)
Quality
Section
to surface
compliance
applicable
Water
permits
technology-based
no person
See 33 U.S.C,.A. Sections
permit.
Board
adopted
Water
NPDES
point
by a National
In California,
regulations
Act,
to the ocean or other waters
(NPDES)
Regional
California
treatment
BACKGROUND
Clean Water
as authorized
1311,
California
on the ground
have not been satisfied.
Under
States
principally
of secondary
I.
discharge
Petitioners
limitations
water
standards
requirements.
from
of
must,
necessary
in
to
and other
33 U.S.C.
Section
1311(b)(l)(C).
1 .The Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club also filed a petition
in this matter.
The petition was dismissed after the Sierra Club
failed to submit an amended petition, complying with this Board's
petition regulations.
See 23 C.C.R. Section 2050 et seq.
-2-
P
,
:
NPDES
(POTWs) must
permits
include
upon secondary
issued
technology-based
The Administrator
treatment
in terms of three
(BOD), suspended
Section
shall not exceed
removal
In California
to ocean waters
standards
Water
30 milligrams
of SS in the influent
Id.(b).2
POTWs
solids
NPDES
must
for ocean waters
Quality
Control
Plan).
These
include
a standard
Plan,
standards
which
See 40 C.F.R.
that, on
specify
effluent
(mg/l), and the percent
must be at least 85 percent.
permits
issued
for discharges
also comply
with the water
established
in the State Board's
Ocean Waters
generally
referred
quality
of California
requires
1988
(Ocean
The standards
by EPA.
75 percent
to as "advanced
from
removal
of
primary".
In 1977 Congress
amended
the Clean Water Act to include
33 U.S.C.
Section
1311(h).
301(h).
authorizes
I’
oxygen
Plan at 6.
Section
..
1311(b)(l)(B)
of SS in treated
per liter
based
secondary
EPA regulations
have been approved
SS, a level of treatment
Ocean
(SS), and pH.
the concentration
a 30-day average,
Sections
biochemical
parameters:
works
limitations
of EPA has defined
In particular,
133.102.
owned treatment
effluent
See 33 U.S.C.
treatment.
and 1342.
demand
to publicly
EPA to waive
the requirement
This section
of secondary
treatment
ll_n1-1-*
__/-y----...____.-._
_____-____
2 Section 133.102 imposes identical requirements
for BOD
concentrations.
In addition, the regulation specifies that
effluent values for pH must, in general, be maintained within
limits of 6.0 to 9.0.
-3-
the
for POTWs
discharging
demonstrates
into marine
that the following
waters,
criteria
if the applicant
0
are met:
"(1) there is an applicable water quality
standard specific to the pollutant for which the
modification
is requested, which has been identified
under section 1314(a)(6) of this title;
(2) the discharge of pollutants in accordance
with such modified requirements will not interfere,
alone or in combination with pollutants from other
sources, with the attainment or maintenance of that
water quality which assures protection of public water
supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and on
the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for
monitoring the impact of such discharge on a
representative
sample of aquatic biota, to the extent
practicable, and the scope of such monitoring is
limited to include only those scientific investigations
which are necessary to study the effects of the
proposed discharge;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in
any additional requirements on any other point or
nonpoint source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for
sources introducing waste into such treatment works
will be enforced;
(6) in the case of any treatment works serving a
population of 50,000 or more, with respect to any toxic
pollutant introduced into such works by an industrial
discharger for which pollutant there is no applicable
pretreatment requirement
in effect, sources introducing
waste into such works are in compliance with all
applicable pretreatment
requirements, the applicant
will enforce such requirements,
and the applicant has
in effect a pretreatment
program which, in combination
with the treatment of discharges from such works,
removes the same amount of such pollutant a,s would be
removed if such works were to apply secondary treatment
to discharges and if such works had no pretreatment
program with respect to such pollutant;
(7) to the extent practicable, the applicant has
established a schedule of activities designed to
eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from
nonindustrial
sources into such treatment works;
@
'.
'c;
(8) there will be no new or substantially
increased discharges from the point source of the
pollutant to which the modification
applies' above that
volume of discharge specified in the permit;
(9) the applicant at the time such modification
becomes effective will be discharging effluent which
has received at least primary or equivalent treatment
and which meets the criteria established under section
1314(a)(l) of this title after initial mixing in the
waters surrounding or adjacent to the point at which
such effluent is discharged."3
Under
incorporating
resides
Section
301(h) authority
a waiver
of secondary
in the Administrator
however,
concur
Section
301(h).
authorizing
constitute
Id.
the State's
The State must,
Id.
waste
permit,
requirements,
of a modified
In California
a discharge
treatment
of EPA.
in the issuance
to issue an NPDES
permit
under
dischatrge requirements
at less than secondary
treatment
in the issuatice of a 301(h)
concurrence
waiver.
The City of Watsonville
facility
Pajaro
serving
County
District.
c
the City,
Sanitation
On September
a wastewater
operates
Freedom
District,
County
Sanitation
and Salsipuedes
13, 1979, the City applied
waiver
for the discharge
from its facility.
City's
treatment
annual
flow of 8.15 million
plant provided
primary
gallons
District,
Sanitary
for a 301(h)
At that time the
treatment
per day
treatment
(mgd).
for an average
The
3 Section 301(h) was amended on February 4,,1987, by Public Law
100-4.
Two new provisions
were added, Subsections
(6) and (9).
EPA's Tentative Decision granting Watsonville a Section 301(h)
waiver indicates that the City's application was reviewed for
compliance with Section 301(h), as amended by Public Law 100-4.
See Tentative Decision of the Regional Administrator,
dated
July 29, 1987, Pages l-5.
-5-
effluent
was discharged
feet of water
to Monterey
at the'end
Bay through
a diffuser
of a 3,850 foot long ocean
in 40
EPA
outfall.
the City's
application
on June
5,, 1985.
The
City then submitted
a revised
application
on May
30, 19,86.
The
revised
was based upon an improved
tentatively
denied
application
involving
design
and configuration
a new parallel
plant,
ocean
annual
average
effluent
Inc., evaluated
Tech,
Technical
Review
EPA issued
29, 1987
dated
order,
discharge
June
(Tentative
requirements
hearing
the City a Section
public
comment
25; 1988.
testimonv
1986
approving
Board
Administrator
the application
staff subsequently
for the Watsonville
of
on
prepared
Board conducted
On
a joint
decision
and on the proposed
was kept open after the hearing
Board
on the DroDosed
received
a
and waste
discharge.
on EPA's tentative
301(h) waiver
The Regional
a
Based upon
(TRR).
both an NPDES permit
testimony
period
an
Tetra
and prepared
the Regional
EPA and the Regional
to receive
to discharge
Decision).
constituting
10, 1988,
December,
decision
of the existing
An EPA consultant,
application
in the report,
EPA and Regional
draft
sought a permit
the revised
a tentative
to the treatment
and extension
flow of 11 mgd.
Report,
the recommendations
July
land outfall,
The application
outfall.
changes
discharge,
to grant
order.
The
until June
additional1 public
order on November
18, 1988.
At the
t
-6-
conclusion
I
0
88-09
of the hearing
and Cease
not signed
the Regional
and Desist
Order
Board
adopted
Order No. 88-183.4
No. 88-09;
consequently,
Order
To date,
the order
No.
EPA has
is not
\.
currently
in effect.
See Order No. 88-09,
II.
Contention:
1.
Board
failed
Monterey
to adequately
alleges
harvesting.
the discharge
of toxic
of discharging
raises
Department,
No. 88-09
chlorine
toxic
Friends
failed
similar
posed
the
by the
prey
species,
impacts
Petitioner,
in addition,
regulate
and
consider
and the cumulative
into the bay.
fails to properly
habitat
to adequately
issues and,
in
of the Sea Otter,
in sea otter
bacteria,
substances
of waters
uses of sea otter
substances
of pathogenic
that the Regional
the quality
Petitioner,
Board
contend
to the sea otter and its habitat
bioaccumulation
Order
protect
that the Regional
D.l.
AND FINDINGS
Petitioners
Bay for the beneficial
shellfish
threat
CONTENTIONS
Prov.
the
contends
the discharge
that
of
to the bay.
Finding:
Clean
Water
Ocean
Plan
Both the Ocean
Act require
specifies
protection
Plan and Section
of marine
that the beneficial
301(h)
communities.
of the
The
uses of ocean waters
4 Cease and Desist Order No. 88-183 was issued for violation of
the BOD, SS, and chlorine residual effluent limitations in Order
The Regional Board anticipated that the cease and
No. 88-09.
desist order would be in effect for only a few months.
Under
Order No. 88-183, the City was required to achieve full
compliance with Order No. 88-09 at February 1, 1989.
-/-
,
that
shall be protected
harvesting,
The Ocean
and.rare
include
marine
and endangered
Plan establishes
habitat,
species.
a water quality
shellfish
Ocean
Plan at 1.
objective
requiring
that:
I.
"Marine communities, including vertebrate,
invertebrate,
and plant species, shall not be
degraded."
Id. at 4.
Degradation
the discharge
density,
on such factors
of normal
species".
by analyzing
the effects
as "species diversity,
growth
contamination,
supplanting
species
anomalies,
population
debility,
by undesirable
plant
of
or
and animal
Id. Appendix.
Section
301(h)
protection
of marine
applicant
demonstrate
alone
is determined
contains
life.
Section
with pollutants
the attainment
or maintenance
the protection
and propagation
an ecological
EPA has defined
community
will
quality
of a balanced,
and wildlife.
a balanced,
for the
\
@
that an
not interfere,
from other
of that water
of shellfish;fish
1311(h)(2),
requirements
301(h) requires
that the discharge
or in combination
population
similar
sources,
which
with
assures
.
indigenous
33 U.S.C.
indigenous
Section
population
as
which:
"(1)
Exhibits characteristics
similar to those of
nearby, healthy communities existing under comparable
but unpolluted environmental conditions; or;
(2) May reasonably be expected to become reestablished
in'the polluted water body segment from
adjacent waters if sources of polluti,on were removed."
40 C.F.R. Section 125.58(f).
-8-
.I
-r
e
In order
/ ,-
0
indigenous
ecological
zone of initial
of initial
affected
community
dilution
dilution
where marine
it is appropriate
of these
is listed
Endangered
Species
otter
population
be slightly
population
as compared
earlier
Service
Id.
The growth
to increases
in Washington
state,
(USFWS)
otters
along
sea
to recover
the population
from
may now
rate of the California
by the USFWS
of 17 percent
lutris
A 1986
the southern
it began
since
in this century,
has been estimated
populations
Although
TRR at 147.
and
the federal
1531 et seq.
Fish and Wildlife
has been growing
declining.
Section
under
(Enhydra
1,300 to 1,400 post-juvenile
coast.
near extinction
otter
States
approximately
the California
16 U.S.C.
Act,
or potentially
the extent
sea otter
species
as a "threatened"
the zone
and shellfish
to first examine
The southern
the
of the modified
on sea otter habitat
uses.
by the United
counted
life is actually
the impact
harvesting,
beyond
areas beyond
In order
to assess
a balanced,
immediately
Id. Sec. 125.61(~).5
discharge
census
must exist
and in all other
Watsonville
nereis)
to be granted,
by the discharge.
intensity
0
for a 301(h) waiver
at about
to 20 percent
Alaska,
7.5 percent,
in other
sea
and British
5 The "zone of initial dilution" is defined in EPA regulations
as the region of initial mixing surrounding or adjacent to the
end of the outfall pipe or diffuser ports.
40 C.F.R. Section
125.58(w).
t
-9-
I
Columbia.
Friends
Authorities
of the Sea Otter,
(FSO Memorandum)
Monterey
otter.
of Points
and
0
at 5.
Bay provides
A rec'ent census
Memorandum
1)
important
by the USFWS
habitat
counted
,",
for the sea
over
150 otters
in
.*
the bay.
Petition
of Friends
of the Sea Otter
Kelp beds on rocky bottoms
at 4.
the sea otter
Watsonville
benthos,
for resting
foraging.
have
is termed
sea otters
reside
Endangered
Species
migratory
been sighted
"occasional".
Consultation
at 5.
travelling
Evidence
therefore,
that the use of bay waters
both an historical
Finding
17 of Order
vicinity
clams
winter
No. 88-09.
Finding
clams.
7
September
presumed
Santa
20, 1985
to be on the
e\
Cruz and
the conclusion,
for sea otter
Existing
include
habitat
is described
clamming
the collection
is
area beaches
establishing
The Department
in
uses in the
of undersized
and the collection
17 also recognizes
has considered
size Pismo
is
harvesting
up on the Watsonville
storms.
dated
two
use.
in the surf zone by poachers
The Department
small
of shellfish
of the discharge
clams washed
Section
supports
and an existing
The extent
outfall.
between
Monterey.
their
to the USFWS,
letter,
in the record
for
According
And, the outfall
path of otters
by a sandy-bottom
in the area although
Id.
of
The
which may be used by the otter
off the Watsonville
(Sec. 7 Letter),
habitat
TRR at 148.
is surrounded
outfall,' in contrast,
Otters
presence
are the preferred
and feeding.
a type of habitat
(FSO Petition)
of surf
during
two potential
a legal
uses.
fishery
also recognizes
1
heavy
for
a
3
r
-lO-
R
potential
commercial
offshore
has not been realized
the near
surf clam
to date,
The latter use
fishery.
nor is it anticipated
however,
in
future.
k
a.
Toxic
Substances
Petitioner,
discharge
habitat
of advanced
plant
bioaccumulation
Watsonville
unlikely
bioconcentration
to assess
would
also be low.
impacts
sea otter
Nevertheless,
pesticides
pollutants,
in caged mussels
dilution
/NY’
i___.-_
---___--.
-ll-
for
Tentative
in the
EPA and the Regional
that Watsonville
and
excluding
deployed,
monitoring
from the
on sea o-tters
abdundance
the bioaccumulation
of all priority
at the zone of initial
8
substances
in Order No. 88-09 a requirement
a proposal
of toxic
EPA, on the other hand,
to be low, the potential
because
that the
sea otter
of bioaccumulation
substantial
Id.
contends
will degrade
of toxic
substances
In general,
area is low.
included
and certain
was expected
of these
at 76.
considered
submit
threat
that since the discharge
Watsonville
Board
effluent
in sea otter prey species.
concluded
Decision
of the Sea Otter,
primary
due to the increased
substances
were
Friends
asbestos,
at a minimum,
stations
and at a
I
reference
Monitoring
station.6
and Reporting
Program
No. 88-09,
Sec. VI, B.
The potential
biota
impacts
is a factor which
of toxic substanc'es on marine
must be considered
in analyzing
.
whether
a
.
modified,30l(h)
population
toxic
of shellfish,
substances
in the Ocean
waters
See Ocean
however,
primarily
in waste
Table
primarily
marine
B, at 7.
for the protection
resulting
impacts
of seafood.
regulated
Ocean
Ch.III.B.3.
with both the requirements
Plan.
of
and the
consumers
substances
in the Ocean
301(h)
the
life; and they,
and human
For purposes
of Section
implement
of accumulation
of toxic
objectives
of effluent
were developed,
and sediments
bioaccumulation
narrative
Ch.II.D.l,
the issues
communities
to ocean
in the Ocean
of aquatic
organisms
to ecological
Rather,
through
Plan,
in marine
which
These objectives
for the most part, do not address
toxic substances
the inclusion
contained
of
is also addressed
substances
requirements,
for toxics
indigenous
The discharge
waters
of toxic
through
discharge
objectives
Plan,
a balanced,
fish and wildlife.
The discharge
Plan.
quality
will assure
to California's
is regulated
limitations
water
discharge
is
Plan.
'See
of compliance
and the Ocean
Plan,
6 "Priority pollutants" refer to the 126 pollutants listed in
The 126 prior'ity pollutants
Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. Part 423.
are derived from the 65 classes of compounds listed at 40 C.F.R.
The "pesticides" are those referred to in the
Section 401.15.
demeton,
They include:
EPA regulations on Section 301(h).
and parathion.
Id.
guthion, malathion, mirex, methoxychlor
Section 125.58(m).
-12-
therefore,
one must analyze
substances
in marine
the data on concentrations
biota
in the region
of toxic
of a proposed
301(h)
discharge.
The City of Watsonville
bioaccumulation
extended
studies
outfalls,
as well as State Mussel
are the 1980 Mussel
and Shellfish
Monitoring
Shellfish
Study,
The results
Bioaccumulation
bioaccumulation
were
outfall:
the zone of initial
reference
station
five kilometers
collected
after
the stations,
proximity
-~-_____
to the outfall
___
stations
the zone of initial
and at a
from the outfall.
32 weeks.
found in tissue
between
and
examined
at three
dilution;
9 weeks and again after
the relationship
the 1980 Fish
Baseline
Study
within
outside
were
The four
inconclusive.
in caged mussels
dilution;
differences
to address
the 1984 Fish and Shrimp
Bioaccumulation
of metals
to the existing
significant
Study,
and
of the 1980 and 1984 Fish
Studies
The 1980 Mussel
relative
Rioaccumulation
data,
179-196.
Study and the 1986 Watsonville
Study.
from four
Watch
See TRR, Pages
Bioaccumulation
Bioaccumulation
data
done in the area of the existing
the issue of bioaccumulation.
studies
submitted
tissue
Mussels
were
Although
concentrations
concentration
among
and
was not consistent.
._______.
.___-_--_..~~_
..-_-.-----
--_
-----:7
.
For example,
concentrations
of mercury,
to exceed
EPA water quality
criteria
substance
aquatic
were
for protection
life at the edge of the new zone of initial
not significantly
Concentrations
substantially
relatively
Bay.
the only toxic.
of cadmium
between
high
Watch
cadmium
central
Report
determine
attributed
to upwelling
California
of higher
waters,
in the record,
the cadmium
cadmium
as compared
however,
.
increased
The applicant
concentrations
as the source
The data
whether
stations
the
in Monterey
was also cited in the 1985-1986
and northern
California.
at the outfall
State
levels
in
to southern
are insufficient
levels can be attributed
to
to
upwelling.
Mean
below
the 95 percent
on both
which
concentrations
sampling
95 percent
Elevated
dates.
of all other metals
Data Level
Watch measurements
fall.
applicant
concentrations
copper,
mercury,
that the mean
were
(EDL 95), at all points
from 1977 to 1987 for a substance
indicated
analyzed
The EDL 95 is the concentration
of the State Mussel
Data provided
lead and zinc in mussels
below
taken
by the
of silver,
collected
at the
_.._____
__/------_________-.-----_________
_..C-’
.._.-.----
----
-
7 EPA water quality criteria are established pursuant to Section
33 U.S.C. Section 1314(a).
They
304(a) of the Clean Water Act.
are numerical values used to evaluate whether or not priority
pollutants are present in receiving waters in concentrations'that
Like the Ocean Plan Table B toxic
adversely affect aquatic life.
objectives,
the EPA criteria do not, in general, address of issue
of accumulation
of toxic substances in marine organisms and
sediments.
-14-
0
dilution,
among all stations.7
sample dates.
This phenomenon
Mussel
different
of
*
Watsonville
Mussel
sites were
Watch
reference
Concentrations
were
higher
However,
mussels
source
manganese
exposed
Head reference
station,
transplanted
concentrations
Bioaccumulation
unrelated
cycle,
of these
Most mussel
tissue
fall.
and muscle
except
asbestos,
In samples
taken
the data do not
problem.
Study
and beyond
tissues
below
upon this fact and
speckled
zone of initial
zone of initial dilution,
pollutants.
factors,
measurements
Based
sites,
Monitoring
from the existing
pollutants,
Watch
of a bioaccumulation
In the 1986 Baseline
dilution,
such as
the EDL 85's, the concentration
with reference
the presence
as
conditions.
the impact
of the State Mussel
upon the comparisons
may change
in the 1980 Mussel
from 1977 to 1987 for a substance
nonpriority
in
the
of waste,
and oceanographic
concentrations.
were below
85 percent
of initial
higher
than in the
in mussels
to the discharge
Study to determine
if any, on tissue
priority
to Watsonville,
of metals
data were collected
proposed
sites.
at the Bodega
of factors
collected
reference
were
Insufficent
were
Watch
at Watsonville
concentrations
reproductive
indicate
and chromium
and chromium
the season,
which
at the State
at Watsonville.
Tissue
concentrations
recorded
1977 and 197'8.
manganese,
than the State Mussel
of the mussels
a result
to levels
areas during
of cadmium,
collected
mussels
comparable
were
sanddab
dilution,
the proposed
analyzed
the
zone
for all the
and 'for six volatile
from the existing
zone of
initial
dilution,
only p,p'-DDE,
DDT was not detected
existing
sanddab
muscle
compared
The source
dilution.
tissue
from the three sampling
and zinc which were higher
The results
the State Mussel
submitted
Watch
of metals
stations
Notably
of Watsonville
sources
high
in marine
biota
not detected
treatment
in Watsonville's
plant
is a much
of pesticides
when
The applicant
bioaccumulation
no studies
evaluate
impacts
or their
prey
compared
by
were
also
found at a station
indicate
that
of pesticides
substances
indicating
were
that the
if not insignificant,
to agricultural
In fact, according
specifically
species.
activities.
discharge
to the USFWS,
to measure
to either
at 5.
do not indicate
that toxics
have impaired
the Regional
-16-
and
sea otters
that the bioaccumulation
discharge
Consequently,
conducted
Sec. 7 Letter
by the applicant
shellfish.
station.
did not submit any data addressing
from wastewater
Watsonville
These
less important,
In sum, we conclude
submitted
effluent,
in sea otters.
have been
were
area.
.
except
conducted
to the bioaccumulation
in the Watsonville
,.
levels of toxaphene,
The results
Slough.
contribute
study
Board
wildlife
could
0
in
different,
Moss Landing
I, and DDT and its derivatives
at the mouth
existing
pesticide
the
were
at the outfall
in the vicinity'of
by the applicant.
endosulfan
nonpoint
of a special
within
of the DDT could
Concentrations
from the data.
was detected.
or the sediments
and were not found to be significantly
for chromium
source
in the effluent
zone of initial
not be determined
a DDT derivative,
data
in the
habitat
reasonably
or
conclude
should
that bioaccumulation
not be a significant
Board's
requirements
inclusion
addressing
in both
Monitoring
and Reporting
in Order
contend
human
may threaten
of pathogens
ingestion
of contaminated
chlorination
Petitioners
absorbed
See
VI.
method
responds
Board
indicate
that the bacterial
are inappropriate
either
through
limits
are strongly
included
treatment
than advanced
bacteria
results
primary.
in Order
deserves
process
removal
Of course,
can also be decreased
-17-
The
in the record
with particulate
in greater
that the
to
No. 88-09
meet the limits.
301(h) waiver
associated
or through
shellfish.
is nothing
by petitioners
ingestion,
is inappropriate.
or that the City cannot
in the Section
direct
contends
by the City
and threaten
that pathogenic
onto particles,
that there
The issue raised
consideration
allege
additionally
selected
of pathogenic
of shellfish
prey, particularly
Regional
pathogenic
with the
of toxic
Section
that the discharge
consumption
the Department,
Petitioner,
solids
we concur
prey species.
No. 88-09,
sea otters
especially
secondary
to Watsonville's
No. 88-09 of monitoring
and their
Program
the sea otter population.
bacteria
respect
prey species
Pathogens
may preclude
bacteria
with
this conclusion,
sea otters
Petitioners
bacteria
in sea otter
the issue of bioaccumulation
substances
b.
concern
To confirm
301(h) discharge.
Regional
of toxics
careful
because
matter,
and
of suspended
concentrations
by chlorination.
of
(1)
Compliance
with Ocean Plan Bacteriological
The Ocean .Plan contains
measured
bacteria,
fecal coliform,
Ocean
Plan,
rather
by the conventional
Ch.1I.A..
is determined
are ambient
collected
and
harvesting.
.
standards,
and compliance
from samples
for
total
and shellfish
The objectives
limitations,
objectives
indicators,
for both body contact
than effluent
standards
water quality
Limits
with
the
in the receiving
waters.
Order
standards
~ ‘.
incorporates
for body contact
No. 88-09,
!
No. 88-09
C. Receiving
shellfish
bacterial
limits
only at shoreline
Finding
17.
for shellfish
harvesting
60-foot
contour
feasible
would
Order
No. 88-09 also
Order
to achieve
a total
milliliters
(ml).
to ensure
bacteria
The
in Order No. 88-09 are
at the present
time.
surf clam harvesting
No. 88-09, Finding
includes
No. 88-09 requires
coliform
These
that the Ocean
effluent
limitations
@
the
proves
17.
Effluent
for
Limitations
of the effluent
of 106 per 100
were included
Plan receiving
limits
limitations
disinfection
concentration
Id.
to approximately
Order No. 88-09,
total and fecal coliform.
B.5 and 6.
1.a. and b.
be necessary
if commercial
in the future.
Order
locations
Plan
Order
harvesting.
Limitations,
included
Ocean
to Order No. 88-09, the bacterial
According
depth
and shellfish
Water
applied
the applicable
water
in the order
objectives
for
were not exceeded.
Both the City of Watsonville
Tetra Tech,
developed
models
and the EPA consultant,
to analyze
the question
of whether
-18-
--
0
e
the City's
limits
301(h)
contained
originally
meeting
without
bacteriological
this model,
lower than
if the effluent
body contact
106/100
ml, body contact
contour
for all cases except worst
days with
surfacing.
a 100 percent
Under
standards
probability
the latter
a model
of Ocean
Plan
According
to
not be violated
concentration
to predict
considered
would
was
nearshore
only compliance
of the model
results,
concentration
of 5 x
be met at the 30 foot
case conditions;
i.e., cloudy
of the discharge
conditions,
of
(ml).
that, with an effluent
Tech concluded
the results
207-224.
would
On the basis
standards.
and
301(h) waiver
coliform
The Tetra Tech model
of
of die-off
of violations
standards
Tech also developed
levels.
the intent
included
See TRR, Pages
harvesting
contour
with
by means
5 x 106 per 100 milliliters
Tetra
coliform
standards.
the bacteriological
in its revised
the frequency
shellfish
at the lo-foot
outfall
The City
Engineers
predicting
with
The City of Watsonville
objectives
chlorination.
by Montgomery
application
Tetra
water
comply
Plan.
its extended
the receiving
a model
would
in the Ocean
designed
dilution,
with
discharge
plume
EPA estimated
that there
,
would
be a one percent
contact
standard
Tentative
allow
during
Decision
case conditions,
at 44.
contact
of violation
of October
limitation
to be met.
harvesting
of the body
and November
Tetra Tech concluded
standards
Plan shellfish
than the body
the months
an effluent
body contact
the Ocean
probability
that,
of 3 x 106/100
It should
standard
only.
in worst
ml would
be noted that
is 14.3 times
lower
standard.
-19-
em
’
Based
effluent
106/100
upon
this data,
limitation
.ml.
concentration
This
for coliform
concentration
which
or Tetra
sensitivity
values.
complex
Board
particular,
we note
Watsonville
discharge
discharger
to analyze
indicate
met,
No. 88-09,
the Regional
requirements
includes
Board
upon
to determine
the modeling
program
collected
organisms.
VI.A.2.
Plan bacteriological
can revise
and Reporting
limits
acted
reasonably,
on the basis of the available
data
are not being
limitations
that the Regional
coliform
-2O-
and fecal
the monitoring
In sum, we conclude
the effluent
In
the
for total
the coliform
will
for the
Monitoring
Should
permit
data.
requiring
No. 88-09.
in selecting
we conclude
by ambient
Order
record,
is very
in the draft
a provision
any mollusks
that the Ocean
a
for the predicted
As a result,
that the monitoring
Section
the
will be met.
to confirm
and enteroccocci
0
a violation
included
which was modelled
relied
at 1 x
Plan.
neither
must also be demonstrated
The monitoring
cause
intervals
be completely
standards
the Regional
Program
because
situation
cannot
bacterial
monitoring.
coliform
models
permit
the act-uracy of either
and is not fully
understood.
8
Compliance
allow
to gauge
set the
lower than the
might
in the Ocean
nor confidence
The physical
that the models
whether
Tech's
analysis
predicted
standards
It is difficult
Board
in the Watsonville
is five times
the models
of the bacteriological
City's
EPA and the Regional
evidence
limits
in
Board
in the
included
in
@
No. 88-09 and that the required
Order
will
allow
e
the Regional
(2)
to further
to the USFWS,
of sea otters,
this issue.
monitor
have been a few reports
there
possibly
related
to raw sewage.
reasonable
to assume
that at least some human
pathogenic
to otters
as well and that waste-borne
therefore,
pose a risk to sea otter populations.
this risk is unknown.
established,
Further,
No bacterial
to date,
there
appropriate
is no information
standard
indicator
fact, many,
which
if not most,
do not exhibit
regarding
support
its contention
not adequately
Exhibit
C.
pathogens,
seawater,
can survive
environment
non-culturable,
rely on the culture
non-culturable
of sea otters.
an
the record
as gauged
by
thought
for indeterminate
in a fully viable
Traditional
of cells.
-21-
as coliform.
cites research
bacteria
to
discharge
is
See FSO Petition,
concluded
to die rapidly
periods
bacterial
that
in
of time in the
and infectious,
Therefore,
In
are viruses,
Watsonville
paper by Dr. Grimes
previously
form.
behavior
that the proposed
A 1986 research
from which
in sewage
of the Sea Otter,
of viable,
protective
bacterial
marine
of the pathogens
of
mammals.
(total and fecal coliform).
Friends
the survival
are
The degree
of marine
pathogens
the same die-off
Petitioner,
It is
pathogens,
In addition,
on bacterial
of
have been
in the record
could be derived.
organisms
pathogens
standards
for the protection
in this case has focused
bacterial
monitoring
Sea Otter Habitat
According
infection
Board
bacteriological
although
counting
the bacteria
techniques
cited in
k
the Grimes
research
regulatory
and monitoring
While
pervasiveness
environment
posed
paper
the Ocean
of viable,
total and fecal coliform
address
added
currently
by Grimes
bacteria
requirement
through
analysis
part of the City's
in wastewater.
mollusks
information
To further
testing
should
of the caged bivalves,
bioaccumulation
for
on which
the food chain.
that bacterial
is also
pathogens
of testing
will provide more
mammals
addressed
from waste-borne
bacteria
the
in the marine
the risk to marine
non-cultusable
we conclude
to the required
to be credible,
non-culturable
mammals
to otters
this issue,
by current
Plan has not explicitly
monitoring
the risk
described
of viable
of risk tc marine
The added
appears
Consequently,
is unknown.
or the presence
to assess
research
of the phenomenon
To date,
the issues
not be measurable
techniques.
the Grimes
by the existence
unknown.
would
which
monitoring
be
is
,e\
’
program.
'0
See Monitoring
sample
and Reporting
of the bivalves
coliform
improperly
the discharge
method
of chlorination
chlorine
method
contact
cannot
Section
for total
V1.B.
A
and fecal
Method
I
contends
that the Regional
the City to chlorinate
pipe.
Petitioner
cannot
to protect
assure
be analyzed
the Department
allowed
within
No. 88-09,
organisms.
Chlorination
Petitioner,
Board
should
and enterococci
(3)
Program
proper
alleges .that the in-pipe
meet the public
shellfish
health
harvesting
concentrations
-22-
its effluent
standard
for
and that the
of chlorine
residual.
.
..
Effective
*
e
chlorine
contact
reliability.
chlorination
time, the chlorine
When designed
is an accepted
method
time is a function
the dose.
minimum
standard
of the necessary
the Department's
for chlorine
(30 minutes
With
respect
flow) will
0/
a
ocean
after
the primary
surge chamber.
control
of chlorine
Petitioner,
301(h) waiver
to evaluate
primary
Friends
the cumulative
particularly
shellfish
monitors
health
harvesting
the record
for residual
sedimentation
basin
should
indicates
chlorine
and at the
provide
of the Sea Otter,
because
for adequate
impacts
pesticides,
of discharging
from rivers
a quantitative
cumulative
Board did consider
that a
Board
failed
advanced
contaminants,
The Regional
is not required
analysis
-23-
receives
and sloughs.
that a 301(h) applicant
impacts
contends
the Regional
to an area which already
the Regional
flow
not be met is unfounded.
Board responds
event,
The design
Impacts
is inappropriate
effluent
a
concentration.
Cumulative
C.
and
pipe is two hours.
residual,
These monitors
contact
of disinfection
that the public
to protect
to chlorine
chlorination
of one hour, with
outfall
concern
that the City does have in-line
immediately
degree
flow of 30 minutes.
contact
at peak hourly
in-pipe
mixing,
and
The appropriate
on the order
time at peak
of initial
system,
appropriately,
time in the Watsonville
Therefore,
control
of disinfection.
It is generally
contact
detention
is a function
and that,
all pertinent
to perform
in any
data
in the
record
on the potential
Watsonville
modified
discharge
Petitioner,
principally
Friends
concerned
sources
as Elkhorn
areas.
Concentrations
however,
Watsonville
effluent.
s&rces
indigenous
Section
1311(h)(2).
pollutant
to provide
modified
for a DDT
Section
dated
population
examining
33 U.S.C.
relevant
require
a
0
\
to all other
The appl,icant is required
to result
on other
see 33 U.S.C.
the necessary
in additional
pollutant
Section
sources.
1311(h)(4).
certification
The
in this case
June 20, 1986.
effects
submitted
by the applicant
of the discharge
of shellfish,
cumulative
of a balanced,
by the State that its proposed
All of the studies
the potential
waters.
"will
from other
301(h) does not, however,
requirements
125.63;
permit
fish and wildlife.
impact analysis,
nearby
demonstrate
with pollutants
and propagation
of shellfish,
Board.provided
in a letter,
that an applicant
or in combination
from such
in the
under a modified
is not expected
40 C.F.R.
Regional
undetectable
requires
a certification
or control
of pesticides
except
to marine
treatment
to be
of pesticides,
cumulative
discharge
appears
and other
Section
discharges
life.
River,
of pollutants
alone
in the
the Pajaro
are currently
population
quantitative
on marine
of the Sea Otter,
with the protection
”
of toxic substances
the discharge
301(h)(2)
that the discharge
not interfere,
about
Slough,
derivative,
Section
impacts
on a balanced,
fish and wildlife
impacts.
There
is
JIO
were,
I
to examine
indigenous
in essence,
evidence
i.n the record
0
l’
-24-
to support
consider
the position
that the Regional
adopted
by the Regional
failed
the monitoring
In addition,
this evidence.
Board
Board will address
to
program
potential
cumulative
effects.
d.
Chlorine
Residual
Petitioner,
Board
erred
require
:
I
alleges
residual;
concentrations
that the Regional
that the City dechlorinate
that Order No. 88-09
control
and, therefore,
of chlorine
fails to
the discharge
the order
cannot
are not present
its
of total
ensure
that
in the
discharge.
The Regional
objectives
0
to require
that the City actively
chlorine
toxic
by failing
Petitioner
effluent.
contends
the Department,
for chlorine
including
residual
Board
appropriate
in Order
residual
effluent
No. 88-09.
Limitation
B.3.
No evidence
to suggest
that the Ocean
will not adequately
Watsonville
record
the receiving
in Table
for total
Order No. 88-09,
was presented
marine
water
B of the Ocean
limitations
Plan objective
protect
discharge.
indicating
implemented
chlorine
Effluent
in the hearing
for chlorine
there
of the
is no evidence
that the City will have difficulty
record
residual
life in the vicinity
In addition,
Plan by
in the
mee.ting this
limit.
Regional
Boards
are precluded
I
Water
Code Section
dischargers
Therefore,
choose
13360,
in most
from specifying
the manner
to comply with the effluent
the Regional
instances,
-25-
in which
limitations.
Board may not even have the
under
/
authority
to specifically
require
the City to actively
*
I
dechlorinate
its effluent.
@
2.
monitoring
Contention:
program
the requirements
Sea Otter,
largely
Cruz,
Petitioners
adopted
by the Regional
of Section
contends
dependent
301(h).
on studies
'w,ithdrawn its 301'(h) waiver
improperly
without
allege
reduced
adequate
an applicant
Board
permit.
application,
have established
because
however.
it was
In addition,
program
November
was
18 hearing
comment.
(3) of Section
a system
of the
Santa Cruz has since
Board's
for public
Subsection
Friends
by the City of Santa
that the sea otter monitoring
at the Regional
+
fails to meet
is inadequate
to be performed
opportunity
Findinq:
j
I
that the sea otter
Petitioner,
that the program
as part of its 301(h) waiver
petitioners
allege
301(h)
requires
for monitoring
that
the impact
0
of the modi.fied discharge
biota,
to the extent
EPA regulations
for a 301(h)
the impact
40 C.F.R.
extent
on a representative
practicable.
provide
applicant
that the biological
"shall provide
of the modified
Section
practicable,
33 U.S.C.
discharge
125.62(b).
sample
Section
1311(h)(3).
monitoring
program
data adequate
on the marine
Biological
of aquatic
monitoring
to evaluate
biota".
mustl
to the
include:
"(i) Periodic surveys of the biological
communities and populations which are most likely
affected by the discharge to enable comparisons with
baseline conditions described in the application and
verified by sampling at the control stations/reference
sites during the periodic surveys;
(ii) Periodic determinations
of the
accumulation of toxic pollutants and pesticides in
-26-
,
”
,
.
organisms and examination of adverse effects, such as
physiological
stress or
disease, growth abnormalities,
death. . . .”
Id.
The components
Order No. 88-09,
of the monitoring
pertaining
program
to sea otters,
incorporated
can be summarized
in
as
follows:
1.
Annually,
be collected
at two stations
Mollusks
and pesticides.
coliform
community
concentrations
to exhibit
lowered
growth
monitoring
critical
program
the effects
including
design
,.
(7)
identify
(2)
(5)
submit
progress
reports;
program
-27-
to define
pollutants
(6)
prepare
found
search on
prey species;
studies;
submit
including
The
a literature
effects
Board;
(8)
sea otter prey
success.
study which
and specific
is done by
of the literature
on additional
to EPA and the Regional
and fecal
reactions,
on sea otter
on key prey species;
cause
critical
conduct
a bioaccumulation
concentrations
pollutants
toxicity
on the results
recommendations
necessary,
critical
wastewater;
a report
which
an eight-part
(1)
pollutants
critical
reproductive
of these pollutants
prepare
for total
will
will be performed.
pollutants,
acute or chronic
concentrations:
for priority
must determine
describes
or humans
If the collection
analysis
rates or reduced
in Watsonville's
proposal
structure
of specific
species
of otters
and analyzed
as well.
The discharger
2.
species
will be analyzed
and enterococcus
trawling,
(3)
key prey
(4)
search,
'if
addresses
of specific
a final
conduct
a report
study
the study;
on the
findings
concentration
pollutants
and pesticides
at a minimum
of three
4.
Tissues
be analyzed
per year
Sets.
IV.A.l-3,
Monitoring
waiver
contained
in Order
monitoring
program
Watsonville
monitoring
However,
I
review
pesticides,
will
and other
Program
program
indicates
No. 88-09,
VI.A.3.
with
those designed
pollutants
process
by the City of Santa
aimed at avoiding
advised
surveys
Similarly,
studies,
for
We hold that the
to coordinate
Santa Cruz and is permitted
species
the USFWS
program
that most of the references
completed
"must provide
prey
that bioaccumulation
with
in Order
*.
Our review of the Watsonville
are simply
Watsonville
Id. Sec.
included
the sea otter monitoring
No. 88-09.
literature
and/or
similar
9
caged bivalves
cast otters
by the City of Santa Cruz.
studies
pollutant
with
of beach
by EPA in conjunction
is, for example,
by reference
of priority
using
and Reporting
from the 301(h) waiver
Cruz's
tissue
B, D.
Cruz does not invalidate
literature
will be assessed
for heavy metals,
No. 88-09 was developed
Santa
and bioconcentration
of two carcasses
The sea otter
withdrawal
of annual
stations.
pollutants.
the proposed
interpretation
data.
Bioaccumulation
3.
priority
including
of the study,
if required,
to incorporate
information
program
identified
for
area".
provides
"should be coordinated
by the City of Santa Cruz,
-28-
their
to the Watsonville
the monitoring
and prey were
duplication.
by Santa Cruz.
the additional
unique
to
provided
in task a".
that
Id.
':
.
a
The sea otter monitoring
.L
,I
survey
of sea otter prey
determination
program
species.
provides
for a periodic
It also provides
of the accumulation
of toxics
a periodic
and pesticides
in
_I
‘i
prey
species
and otters
prey
species.
The direct
to the threatened
Species
Act.
sea otters,
Order
Petitioners
was improperly
l
adequate
opportunity
hearing
the proposed
that the sea otter
of Section
381(h)
in
and
program
18 hearing
comment.
was revised
Several
program
without
days before
to add language
the
stating
and conclusions
of other
in the program.
collected
program.
study
Board without
to comment
modify
cannot,
public
to
the proposed
in fact, be
notice
Section
Therefore,
on any proposed
-29-
limited
state and federal
See 23 C.C.R.
123.25.
was
the
Id.
Under applicable
122.62,
sampling
In addition,
species
did not substantially
for a hearing.
have an opportunity
prey
trawling.
the bioaccumulation
Section
Id.Sec.VI.3.
of sea otter
during
by the Regional
40 C.F.R.
of
program
that the sea otter monitoring
at the November
and collection
opportunity
monitoring
regulations.
for public
The revisions
reduced
on direct
upon the findings
required
regulations,
the Endangered
study could be
efforts
monitoring
due
bioaccumulation
based
species
is limited
in
prey species
reduced
sampling
the requirements
allege
reduced
under
effects
that the sea otter monitoring
fulfills
federal
of adverse
of sea otters
the legal constraints
we conclude
No. 88-09
sampling
status of the sea otter
Given
the applicable
0
and an examination
and an
2235.2;
petitioners
will
reductions
in the
bioaccumulation
sampling
study
of prey
in the future.
The limitation
to species
species
collected
during
I
1
,/
”
0
on the
trawling
*
appears
minor
to be a reasonable,
change
to the monitoring
program.
Contention:
3.
discharge
under
is not sufficiently
Section
Section
secondary
treatment
pollutant
into marine
waters
hydrological
Administrator
Section
301(h) authorizes
waters".
'for a waiver
there
This phrase
determines
in Section
of the territorial
tidal movement
.
sea or
estuarine
and other
characteristics
[are] necessary
of
of any
is defined
zone, or into saline
is strong
and geological
a waiver
for "the discharge
into deep waters
of the contiguous
where
that Watsonville's
"deep" to qualify
requirements
as "a discharge
the waters
contend
301(h).
Finding:
301(h)
Petitioners
which
.
.
.”
the
33 U.S.C.
1311(h).
EPA regulations
Section
301(h) do not
requirement..
Rather,
the regulations
specify
a minimum
provide
that an applicant's
and designed
depth
implementing
outfall
and diffuser
must be located
to provide:
"(1) . . . adequate initial dilution, dispersion
and transport of wastewater to meet all applicable
water quality standards at and beyond the boundary of
the zone of initial dilution:
(i)
During
periods
of maximum
stratification
and
(ii)
characteristics,
During
water
other periods when discharge
quality, biological seasons,
-3o-
or
oceanographic
conditions
situations may exist.
indicate
more
critical
(2) Following initial dilution, the partially
diluted wastewater and particulates must be transported
and dispersed so as.not to affect water use areas
adversely
(including recreational and fishing areas)
and areas of biological sensitivity."
40 C,.F.R.
Section 125.61(a).
The EPA regulations
the environmental
calculus
Resources
Council
Defense
Protection
Agency,
interpretation
depth
v. United
has been upheld
States
and transport
outfall
the initial
dilution
of the Watsonville
82 to 160.
See TRR, Pages 150-155,
initial
initial
dilution
dilution
discharge
for the minimum
'addition,
in order to receive
demonstrate
U.S.C.
that its modified
criteria
adjacent
adequate,
dilution.
after initial
to the point at which
Section
This
is whether
Tetra
29.
Tech calculated
to range
were
a minimum
assumed.
dilution
of the
the toxic material
Ocean
be met at the edge
Plan,
Chapter
a 301(h) waiver,
will meet
mixing
in the waters
such effluent
IV.
an applicant
discharge
-31-
from
The resulting
current
Plan must
1311(h)(9).
discharged
Tech calculated
initial
Natural
See id.
discharge
Tetra
in Table B of the Ocean
of the zone of initial
quality
was 82.
to be considered
objectives
are adequate.
of 81, if no ambient
In order
1981).
of wastewater
Table
in
Environmental
by petitioners
from the Watsonville
minimum
[301(h)]".
by the courts.
the issue raised
dispersion
to be "one factor
set up in section
656 F.2d 768 (D.C.Cir.
Therefore,
the dilution,
consider
In
must
EPA water
surroundingor
is discharged.
33
In their
effluent
with
‘/,
1
data
Ocean
review,
submitted
Plan Table
for the protection
ambient
81.
water
Based
Ocean
of marine
chronic
objective
mercury
exceeded
Without
additional
the mercury
mercury,
data,
criteria
standard
would
Tech
criteria
calculated
concluded
of
that all
and for
be met except
the
concentration
for
for only one set of data.
it is impossible
to determine
a rare or frequent
the data indicate
quality
be met,
The calculated
for mercury.
applicable
would
application
iniitial dilution
Tetra Tech
all EPA criteria
set represents
Since
a minimum
calculations,
substances,
revised
Tetra
life.
using
except
two sets of
and EPA water
aquatic
concentrations,
upon these
the one data
by the City in' their
B objectives
Plan objectives,
detected
Tetra Tech compared
whether
occurrence.
that all standards
except
for
will be met at the edge of the zone of
j)
initial
it is reasonable
dilution,
'dilution
is adequate.
With respect
full characterization
If compliance
with
should
consider
source
control
currents
surface.
the objective
measures,
The Tetra
predominantly
10 centimeters
quality
becomes
or treatment
affecting
that the initial
to the mercury
would
dispersion
objective,
a
be appropriate.
Watsonville
a problem,
its pretreatment
and the likelihood
near the existing
;
of effluent
modifying
Factors
to conclude
additional
program,
alternatives.
include
and transport
of the effluent
plume
reaching
the
Tech report 'indicated that the net current
and extended
upcoast
Watsonville
butfall
is
with a speed of approximately
per second.
However,
-32-
the generalized
circulation
Ih
.
Y
_
‘,\
pattern
‘2
drift
varies
were
i
seasonally
the effluent
1
,::
periods
of downcoast
observed.
Tetra
L.
and intermittent
Tech calculated
plume
that the average
from the Watsonville
outfall
depth
at which
would
cease to
rise was 12.2 meters.
If the plume did surface,/ dispersion
initial
be less than for a trapped
dilution
would
the plume would
dilution
would
float on the water
be relatively
surface;
plume,
however,
after
because
the initial
great due to the increased
height
of
the plume.
With
regard
there
dilution,
conclusion
is no evidence
of the Regional
discharge
dispersion
localized
areas.
evaluate
this issue.
discharge
antidegradation
must
In order
submit
discharge
standards.
the
of a lack of
of pollutants
and bacterial
provide
data to
of: the Sea Otter,
in determining
comply with
in
monitoring
improved
Friends
Board erred
of the
that the
the federal
policy.
Findinq:
applicant
would
impact
be accumulation
Petitioner,
that the Regional
Watsonville
modified
would
Contention:
to dispute
Board and EPA that the depth
No. 88-09 should
by Order
the zone of initial
in the record
The bioaccumulation
required
4.
outside
One potential
is adequate.
sufficient
contends
to dispersion
to obtain
a determination
a 301(h) waiver,
by the State that the
will comply with all applicable
40 C.F.R.
Section
125,60(b)(2).
-33-
an
water
Cne of the
quality
applicable
standards
id. Section
is the federal
131.6(b);
State
The federal
existing
instream
antidegradation
See
Board Order No. WQ 86-17.
antidegradation
water
policy.
policy
requires
uses be fully protected.
that
40 C.F.R
I
Section
131.12.
the policy
that
waters
that
allows
lowering
important
Assuming
water
water
economic
National
quality
"is necessary
or social
development
Id.(s)(2).
high quality
resource,
and protected".
to be lowered
quality
are located".
"[wlhere
that these uses are fully protected,
.
.
waters
finds
to acc'ommodate
in the area in which
The policy
further
constitute
an outstanding
that water quality
.
if the State
the
provides
shall be maintained
Id.(s)(3).
The Regional
Board and EPA concluded
antidegradation
analysis
was unnecessary
discharge
not lower water quality.
that an
because
the Watsonville
t’
would
Specifically,
the
3
Regional
Board
the mass
emission
1987 levels.
annual
existing
that the Order No. 88-09 would
of pollutants
mass
while
emissions
SS would
discharge
insignificant.
In addition,
toxic materials
effluent
generally
more
pkior waste
Order
restrictive
discharge
No. 84-47.
in treatment
of BOD would
increase
levels.
the Regional
limitations
-34-
the
by
over
was considered
Board
in Order
found that the
No. 88-09 were
limitations
for the Watsonville
limitations
over
ait the plant,
be reduced
than the effluent
requirements
plant
by only two percent
This increase
The effluent
not increase
from the Watsonville
Due to improvements
average
42 percent
found
in Order
in the
discharge,
No. 88-09.
were based
more
upon Table B of the 1988 Ocean
stringent
limitations
the 1983 Ocean
i
new outfall
’i
'6
providing
configuration
for a greatly
for better
mixing
for most constituents
the Regional
Finally,
Plan.
Plan, which
would
improve
improved
and dilution
disposal
than Table
Board
water
contains
noted
quality
that the
by
configuration,
of the effluent
with
B of
allowing
the receiving
waters.
The Regional
A comparison
reasonable.
Order
No. 88-09 with
should
Board
Board's
of the proposed
the existing
be no lowering
fulfilled
conclusion
to be
discharge
discharge
authorized
indicates
of the federal
by
that there
the Regional
Therefore,
of water quality.
the requirements
appears
antidegradation
policy.
5.
waiver
Contention:
was inappropriate
directs
that Monterey
Petitioners
contend
in this case because
Bay be designated
that a 301(h)
recent
legislation
as a National
Marine
Sanctuary.
Finding:
Title
III of the Marine
of 1972
U.S.C.
Section
as a National
0.
1431 et seq.
of Commerce
Marine
On January
a notice
Oceanic
Research,
into law.
Section
Sanctuary
and Sanctuary
Public
Law 100-627,
205 of the Act directs
to issue a notice
designating
Monterey
no later than December
6, 1989, the Department
in the Federal
the National
7, 1988, the reauithorization
Protection,
(the Act) was signed
Secretary
$
On November
Register
and Atmospheric
-35-
Administration
Act
16
the
Bay
31, 1989.
of Commerce
that, as required
of
published
by Congress,
(NOAA) of the
.
Department.of
Candidate
’!
,
j
/
Commerce
had named Monterey
for designation
as a National
Federal
Register
448-452.
process
include
preparation
The next
Bay as an Active
Marine
Sanctuary.
54
steps in the evaluation
of an environmental
impact
b
statement
J+
(EIS) and a management
management
plan will
sanctuary
designation
research
protection,
administrative
management
plan.
specify
Therefore,
however,
of a draft
the impact,
sanctuary
designation
The Regional
programs
and interpretation.
and regulatory
To date,
Section
1434.
the goals and objectives
and describe
will be analyzed
availability
See 16 U.S.C.
The
of
for resource
The various
alternatives
to sanctuary
in the EIS.
NOAA has not published
EIS and management
plan
if any, of Watsonville's
cannot
be determined
Board points
notice
of the
for Monterey
Bay.
301(h) waiver
at the present
on
time.
i
out that one of the purposes
.t
of the Act is "to support,
research
areas.
and coordinate
on, and monitoring
of, the resources
Id. Sec. 1421(b)(3).
The monitoring
Watsonville
under
assist
in meeting
cannot
conclude,
Monterey
promote,
Order
No. 88-09 during
the purposes
at the present
Bay as a National
Watsonville's
301(h)
scientific
of' these marine
data
supplied
its five-year
of the Act.
Marine
Sanctuary
waiver.
-36-
term may
In any event,
time, that designation
by
we
of
is inconsistent
with
III. CONCLUSIONS
1.
Order No. 88-09
quality
of Monterey
habitat
and shellfish
adequately
protects
Bay for the beneficial
the water
uses of sea otter
harvesting.
&_
2.
Reporting
The sea otter monitoring
Program
3.
Section
No. 88-09 should
analyzed
No. 88-09
program
V1.B.
of Monitoring
be amended
to require
and Reporting
Program
that the caged bivalves
The depth of the Watsonville
5.
The Regional
Board complied
discharge
is adequate.
with the federal
policy.
The adoption
of Order No. 88-09 is not in conflict,
I
at the Present
4.
National
time. with designation
Marine
IT IS HEREBY
Order.
of Monterey
Bay as a
Sanctuary.
IV.
and Reporting
be
and enterococcus.
4.
6.
and
is adequate.
for total and fecal coliform
antidegradation
in Monitoring
Program
ORDERED
ORDER
that Section
No. 88-09 is amended
V1.B.
of Monitoring
as provided
in this
IT IS FURTHER
the Sea Otter
ORDERED
that the petitions
and the Department
of Fish and Game
of Friends
of
are otherwise
denied.
.L,
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Administrative
Assistant to the Board,
does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and
correct copy of an order duly and regularly adopted at a meeting
of the State Water Resources Control Board held on January 18,
1990.
AYEi'
W. Don Maughan
Darlene E. Ruiz
Eliseo M. Samaniego
Danny Walsh
NO:
None
ABSENT:
Edwin H. Finster
ABSTAIN:
None
Maurkn
March6
Adminihrative
-38-
Assistant
to the Board