ATTACHMENT 4. ATTACHMENT C-1 ENVIRONMENTAL … · CV-SALTS Robertson-Bryan, Inc./CDM Smith 4 Substitute Environmental Documentation Acronyms and Abbreviations µmhos/cm micromhos

ATTACHMENT 4. ATTACHMENT C-1 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

CENTRAL VALLEY

SALT AND NITRATE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBSTITUTE ENVIRONMENTAL

DOCUMENTATION

Prepared for:

CENTRAL VALLEY SALINITY ALTERNATIVES FOR LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY

(CV-SALTS)

Prepared by:

9888 Kent Street Elk Grove, CA 95624

In association with:

December 2016

Commented [A1]: Please see specific mark‐up comments throughout document. Please see applicable comments on Section 6 Environmental Review and Economic Analysis, Attachment A‐9 SMCL guidance, Attachment C‐2 Economic Analysis, Attachment C‐3 Antidegradation Analysis, and Attachment D‐3 Alternative SNMP Proposals, which we incorporate by reference.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan CV-SALTS

Robertson-Bryan, Inc./CDM Smith Substitute Environmental Documentation i

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for this Document....................................................................................... 2 1.3 Scope of Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 CEQA Scoping Meeting and Comments .................................................................................. 3

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING............................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Sacramento River Hydrologic Region....................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Land Cover and Land Uses .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Hydrology................................................................................................................................ 8 2.2.4 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region .................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.2 Land Cover and Land Uses .................................................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................. 13 2.3.4 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 13

2.4 Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region .............................................................................................. 18 2.4.1 Climate.................................................................................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Land Cover and Land Uses .................................................................................................. 18 2.4.3 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................. 18 2.4.4 Water Quality ........................................................................................................................ 18

2.5 Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.............................................................................................. 20 3 REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................................................. 22

3.1 Federal Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations ..................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act ....................................................................................................... 25

3.2 State Laws, Plans, Policies, and Regulations......................................................................... 25 3.2.1 Statutes................................................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Water Quality Control Plans ................................................................................................. 28 3.2.3 Policies and Programs .......................................................................................................... 34 3.2.4 Regulation of Waste Discharges in the Central Valley.......................................................... 39

4 PROPOSED PROJECT AND NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 55

4.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 55 4.1.1 Groundwater Management Areas......................................................................................... 57 4.1.2 Permitting and Management Strategies................................................................................ 59 4.1.3 Policies and Guidance .......................................................................................................... 65

4.2 No Project Alternative............................................................................................................. 75 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................................. 76

5.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 76 5.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 78 5.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 81 5.4 Biological Resources .............................................................................................................. 83 5.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 88

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Robertson-Bryan, Inc./CDM Smith Substitute Environmental Documentation 2

5.6 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity ............................................................................................... 90

5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 93 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................... 94 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................. 98 5.10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 117 5.11 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................ 119 5.12 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 120 5.13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 122 5.14 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 125 5.15 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 126 5.16 Transportation/Traffic ........................................................................................................... 127 5.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 130 5.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance...................................................................................... 132

6 ANA LYSIS OF NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 140

6.1 Assessment of Alternative .................................................................................................... 140 6.2 Cumulative Impacts Assessment.......................................................................................... 142 7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 144

FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of hydrologic regions within the Central Valley Water Board jurisdiction. .............................. 5

Figure 2. Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley water year type for 1977–2015 (C = Critical; D = Dry; BN = Below Normal; AN = Above Normal; W = Wet) ............................................................................ 6

Figure 3. Central Valley groundwater basin boundaries, defined by DWR Bulletin 118................................ 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS



TABLES

Table 1. Summary of surface water quality data for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs...................................................................................................... 10

Table 2. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region............................................................ 11

Table 3. Summary of surface water quality data for the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs...................................................................................................... 15

Table 4. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. .......................................................... 16

Table 5. Summary of surface water quality data for the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs. ................................................................................................................................ 19

Table 6. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. .................................................................... 20

Table 7. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta inflows and outflows. .................................................................. 21

Table 8. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and metals with secondary MCLs in the Delta Region associated with municipal and domestic supply (MUN) and agricultural (AGR) beneficial use impairments....................................................................................................... 22

Table 9. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (consumer acceptance contaminant levels) in California Code of Regulations Table 64449-A. .................................................................................................. 29

Table 10. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (consumer acceptance contaminant level ranges) in California Code of Regulations Table 64449-B. .................................................................................. 29

Table 11. Salt water quality objectives at Vernalis and boron water quality objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River between the mouth of the Merced River and Vernalis .................................................. 33



Acronyms and Abbreviations

µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter

µS/cm microsiemens per centimeter

AGR agricultural supply

BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

Bay-Delta WQCP Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary

BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

BMPs Best management practices

CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network

Central Valley Water Board

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CV-SALTS Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability Initiative

CVP Central Valley Project

CWA Clean Water Act

Delta Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

DWR Department of Water Resources

EC electrical conductivity

ELGs Effluent Limitation Guidelines

ESA Endangered Species Act

IGP Industrial General Permit

ILRP Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program

MCL maximum contaminant level

mg/L milligrams per liter

mmhos/cm millimhos per centimeter

MS4s municipal separate storm sewer systems

MUN municipal and domestic supply

N nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

OWTS onsite wastewater treatment systems

POTW publically-owned treatment works



Acronyms and Abbreviations

SC specific conductance

SED substitute environmental documentation

SRSJR Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins

SNMP Salt and Nitrate Management Plan

State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board

SWP State Water Project

TDS total dissolved solids

TLB Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin

TMDL total maximum daily load

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

U.S.C. United States Code

USGS United States Geological Survey

WDRs waste discharge requirements

WTP water treatment plant

WQBELs water quality-based effluent limitations



1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Elevated salt and nitrate concentrations in portions of California’s Central Valley impair, or threaten to impair, the region’s water and soil quality. Such impairment, in turn, threatens agricultural productivity and/or the region’s drinking water supplies. The Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability initiative, or otherwise CV-SALTS, began in 2006 as coalition of representatives from agriculture, municipalities, industry, water supply, environmental justice, state and federal regulatory agencies and the public to develop an environmentally and economically sustainable plan for the management of salt and nitrate in the Central Valley.

CV-SALTS was tasked with developing a Salt and Nitrate Management Plan (SNMP) for the entirety of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Central Valley Water Board or Board) jurisdictional area (referred to herein as “Central Valley” or “Region 5”). The Central Valley SNMP builds on a range of water quality management policies and mechanisms already in existence, proposes additional policies and tools needed to provide the Central Valley Water Board with flexibility in addressing legacy and ongoing loading of salt and nitrate in the diverse region, and presents a comprehensive regulatory and programmatic approach for the sustainable management of salts and nitrate in groundwater and surface water (Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability 2016).

Although broader in overall scope, the SNMP also was developed to meet requirements set forth in the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Recycled Water Policy. The Recycled Water Policy provides statewide direction regarding the appropriate criteria to be used when issuing permits for recycled water projects. In addition, the Recycled Water Policy articulates the State Water Board’s policy that every groundwater basin/subbasin in California needs to have a consistent salt and nutrient management plan. To ensure that such plans were developed in a timely manner, the Recycled Water Policy establishes criteria and timelines for their development. One of the overarching goals of the Recycled Water Policy is to develop salt and nutrient management plans (for groundwater basins or subbasins) that are sustainable on a long-term basis and to provide California with clean, abundant, local water.

In order to achieve the goals established by CV-SALTS for the Central Valley, the SNMP must not only address the requirements of the Recycled Water Policy but also address legacy and ongoing salt and nitrate accumulation concerns. To address these concerns, implementation of this SNMP is built on achieving the following prioritized Central Valley Region management goals for salt and nitrate:

Goal 1: Ensure a safe drinking water supply.

Goal 2: Achieve balanced salt and nitrate loadings, where reasonable and feasible.

Goal 3: Implement managed aquifer restoration program, where reasonable and feasible.

Commented [A2]: We agree and appreciate this important goal of the SNMP. However, important aspects of a safe, reliable drinking water supply include water that is aesthetically pleasing and at a reasonable cost. We are concerned that the proposed revisions to the secondary MCLs in Table 64449‐A will degrade source water quality and result in either reduced aesthetics of the treated water supply or increased water treatment and residual costs. The implications of the Attachment A‐9 SMCL guidance should be included in the evaluation of this goal.



These management goals recognize the need to focus limited resources first on health risks associated with unsafe drinking water. Subsequent, but important, goals that will require longer implementation timelines include balancing salt and nitrate loading and restoring water quality, where reasonable and feasible.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS DOCUMENT

Implementation of the SNMP and related policies (included as attachments to the SNMP) will occur through adoption, by the Central Valley Water Board, of amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (Basin Plans). The Central Valley Water Board amends its Basin Plans through a structured process involving peer review (as necessary), public participation, and environmental review. The Board must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) when amending its Basin Plans. However, the Secretary of Natural Resources has certified the Board’s basin planning process as exempt from the CEQA requirement to prepare an environmental impact report because a sufficiently rigorous environmental review is incorporated into the basin planning process itself. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.5.; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15251(g).) Before adopting amendments to the Basin Plans, the Board prepares and circulates substitute environmental documentation or an “SED”, rather than an environmental impact report. In the SED, the Board analyzes any potential adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed amendment(s). This document was prepared to serve as the SED for adoption of the proposed SNMP and components of related policies into the Basin Plans, and addresses the impacts associated with implementing the SNMP and related policies on the affected environment of the Central Valley.

1.3 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT

The analysis in this SED is a program level (i.e., macroscopic) analysis of environmental impacts. CEQA describes a program‐level environmental analysis as one prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either (1) geographically, (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, or plans, or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15168).

In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21159(a), this SED does not engage in speculation or conjecture. This SED identifies the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable actions to be implemented, based on information developed before, during, and after the CEQA Scoping Meeting. When the CEQA analysis identifies a potentially significant environmental impact, the accompanying analysis identifies reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures (Pub. Res. Code, § 21159(a)(2)).

Subsequent project‐level environmental analyses will be performed, as required by CEQA, by the local agencies that will implement projects resulting from the SNMP (Pub. Res. Code, §

Commented [A3]: Was a peer review conducted, and if yes, please provide information. We recommend that peer review include the Division of Drinking Water and OEHHA.



21159.2). Notably, the Central Valley Water Board is prohibited from specifying the manner of compliance with its regulations (Wat. Code, § 13360), and accordingly, the actual environmental impacts of specific projects will necessarily depend upon the compliance strategy selected by the local implementing agencies and other permittees. The environmental analysis of the Proposed Project presented in this SED assumes that the permittees will design, install, and maintain projects following all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and formally adopted municipal and/or agency codes, standards, and practices.

1.4 CEQA SCOPING MEETING AND COMMENTS

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.9, CEQA Scoping Meetings and Public Workshops were held to discuss and solicit comments and suggestions from the public regarding the development of the SNMP and the incorporation of components of the SNMP into the Basin Plans. The CEQA Scoping Meetings and Public Workshops for the SNMP were held on October 10, 2013, in Modesto, October 16, 2013, in Rancho Cordova, October 21, 2013, in Colusa, and October 28, 2013 in Fresno, California. At these meetings/workshops, Central Valley Water Board staff from the CV-SALTS Program gave presentations describing the regulatory background and need for the SNMP, project proposal, and potential alternatives. As the lead agency for the CEQA process, the Central Valley Water Board prepared and issued the Notification of the CEQA Scoping Meeting and Public Workshop to all interested parties and was designated as the entity to receive all public comments regarding the proposed SNMP scope and content. Comments were to be submitted by December 31, 2013. Documents associated with the CEQA Scoping Meeting, including the meeting Notification, presentations, and Information Document, can be downloaded from the Central Valley Water Board website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/salinity/.

The following list summarizes the key requests made in the comments pertinent to the CEQA assessment. The commenters requested:

Assessment of how implementation of the SNMP would impact compliance with Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) salinity objectives and water supplies of water rights holders responsible for compliance with Delta salinity objectives.

Assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the agricultural environment from implementation of the SNMP.

Assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives for the SNMP.

Assessment of environmental impacts that may result from social and economic impacts of the SNMP.

Assessment of impacts on vulnerable communities and populations.

The assessment of the effects of the Central Valley SNMP on the environment, including the resources identified above, is addressed relative the environmental setting (described in Section 2) and regulatory setting (described in Section 3). Two alternatives are provided for this

Commented [A4]: Please update to include our requests. We especially would like noted that we requested an explanation for the inclusion of non‐salinity SMCLs.



assessment, the Proposed Project and a No Project Alternative, which are described in Section 4. Assessment of the alternatives is provided in Section 5 for the Proposed Project and Section 6 for the No Project Alternative. References relied on to prepare this document are listed in Section 7.

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

2.1 OVERVIEW

The affected environment for the SNMP is the jurisdictional area of the Central Valley Water Board. The Central Valley Region stretches from the Oregon border to the Kern County/Los Angeles County line. It is bound by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east and the Coast Range on the west. Three distinct hydrologic regions comprise the Central Valley Region (California Department of Water Resources 2013a, 2013c, 2013d):

The northern third of the valley falls within the “Sacramento River Hydrologic Region” and is referred to as the Sacramento Valley.

The southern two-thirds of the valley is referred to as the San Joaquin Valley, which contains two hydrologic regions:

o The “San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region” in the north.

o The “Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region” in the south.

The Delta is contained in and receives flows from both the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River hydrologic regions that are redistributed throughout California via federal and state water projects. Figure 1 shows the hydrologic region boundaries and location of the Delta within the Central Valley Water Board jurisdiction.

The Central Valley is generally characterized by a Mediterranean climate, though there is significant variation at various latitudes. Summers are long, hot, and dry throughout the region. On the valley floor, roughly 85 percent of annual precipitation falls during November through April, with half of it falling in December through February in average years (Climate Source 2006, as cited in Faunt 2009). Climate change is expected to result in more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow and a faster rate of snow melt, which will alter surface water runoff and flow patterns in the future (California Department of Water Resources 2016a).

The annual variability in precipitation within the Central Valley is reflected in the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley water year hydrologic classification indices (California Data Exchange Center 2016). Water years are classified as wet, above normal, below normal, dry, or critical, based on measured unimpaired runoff in valley rivers, according to the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Control Plan (State Water Resources Control Board 2006). As can be seen in Figure 2, both valleys can experience extended periods with back-to-back dry and critical water years, such as from 1987–1992 and 2013–2015, as well as back-to-back wet periods, such as water years 1995–1999. Climate change is expected to result in more variable weather patterns and longer, more severe droughts (California Department of Water Resources 2016a).

Commented [A5]: Please consider if sufficient consideration of alternatives was provided to ensure full consideration of potential impacts and selection of the best alternative to prevent degradation of water quality and minimize risk to public health and welfare.

Central Valley Salt and N rate Management Plan CV-SALTS

Robertson-Bryan, lncJCDM Smith Subst ute Environmental Documentation 5

Legend

-- Rivers

c=J Delta

CJRegion 5 Hydrologic Region

-- Sacram ento & San Joaquin R ive

C) RWQCB

c::::J Central Valley

0 30 60 120 Miles

Source Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability 2016.

Figure 1. Map of hydrologic regions within the Central Valley Water Board jurisdiction.



Source: California Data Exchange Center (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/wsihist)

Figure 2. Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley water year type for 1977–2015 (C = Critical; D = Dry; BN = Below Normal; AN = Above Normal; W = Wet)

An extensive array of reservoirs, channels, aqueducts, and pumps form a network of managed surface water storage and delivery systems to supply both a portion of the water needed throughout the Central Valley as well as supply water needs throughout California. The Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) move water from the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River through the Delta for delivery to users in the San Joaquin Valley as well as to the South Bay, Central Coast and Southern California. East Bay Municipal Utility District delivers water from the Mokelumne and Sacramento rivers to customers in its service area. The Tuolumne River is a primary water supply for the City of San Francisco.

California's groundwater provides approximately 30 to 46 percent of the State's total water supply, depending on water year type (e.g., wet or dry), and serves as a critical buffer against drought and climate change (California Department of Water Resources 2016b). Some communities in California are 100 percent reliant upon groundwater for urban and agricultural use (California Department of Water Resources 2016b). Within the Central Valley Region, there are 86 groundwater basins and 126 groundwater subbasins, as defined by DWR Bulletin 118 (California Department of Water Resources 2003), which are shown in Figure 3. The two main basins within the region are the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin and San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin includes subbasins that lie within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. The main source of groundwater in the Central Valley is typically located within the upper 1,000 feet of deposits which contains the groundwater that is the main focus of the SNMP. In some places, saline water is found at


Robertson-Bryan, Inc./COM SmithSubstitute Environmental Documentation 7

shallow depths in continental deposits, which can result from upward migration of connate water, evaporative concentration, or estuarine water trapped during sedimentation (Page 1986).

Groundwater Basins and Subbasins (DWR, Bulletin 118)

0 35 70 Miles

D calwater_22_HR

c::J cvRWQCB

DWR Bulletin 118 GW Basin Boundaries ...,.._J

CJ Other Groundwater Basins and Subbasins within Reg5i Jurisdicti "< - Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins

CJ San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin and Subbasins

GW Subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region

CJ Groundwater Basins and Subbasins Outside CVRWQCB

Figure 3. CentralValley groundwater basin boundaries,defined by DWR Bulletin 118.



Additional information regarding climate, watershed characteristics, hydrology, and surface water and groundwater quality specific to the three hydrologic regions and Delta is provided in the following sections.

2.2 SACRAMENTO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION

The Sacramento River Hydrologic Region covers approximately 27,200 square miles and includes the entire area drained by the Sacramento River. For Central Valley Water Board basin planning purposes, this region includes all watersheds tributary to the Sacramento River that are north of the Cosumnes River watershed. It also includes the closed basin of Goose Lake and drainage subbasins of Cache and Putah Creeks. (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016)

2.2.1 Climate

Precipitation in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region generally decreases from north to south and east to west. The mountain regions to the north and the east experience cold, wet winters, with most precipitation falling as snow. The northernmost area is dominated by a high desert plateau and also receives the majority of precipitation as snow. (California Department of Water Resources 2013a) Precipitation on the valley floor varies from an annual average of 34 inches in Redding to 17 inches in Sacramento (Western Regional Climate Center 2016).

2.2.2 Land Cover and Land Uses

Of the Sacramento River Region’s 27,200 square miles, 11 percent (about 1.95 million acres) is occupied by irrigated agriculture. Crop type varies by location within the region; main crops on the valley floor include rice, walnuts, almonds/pistachios, pasture, alfalfa and grain. Of the region’s 1.95 million acres of irrigated agriculture, roughly 1.58 million acres are located on the valley floor and approximately 370,000 irrigated acres are located in the surrounding mountain valleys, which is primarily pasture and alfalfa. In 2010, the population of the region was 2.93 million. Cities and towns north of Sacramento are located in predominantly agricultural areas. (California Department of Water Resources 2013a)

2.2.3 Hydrology

The principal surface water feature of the region is the Sacramento River. Major tributaries include the Feather River and American River. Flows in the Sacramento River are influenced by precipitation (rainfall and snowpack/snowmelt), but are also influenced by several reservoirs on the tributaries and main stem, which are managed for flood control, water supply, and hydroelectric power generation by federal, state, and local water projects. Irrigation diversions and agricultural return flows also affect the river regime.

The Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin is the main groundwater basin located in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region. The basin is divided into 18 groundwater subbasins, based on hydrologic, geologic, and political boundaries, covering 6,057 square miles of the Central Valley floor. Other groundwater basins within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region



are identified in Figure 3. Groundwater generally flows from the foothills on either side, toward the Sacramento River, and south toward the Delta.

2.2.4 Water Quality

2.2.4.1 Surface Water

Surface waters in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region generally support their beneficial uses, including drinking and irrigation water, recreation, and protection of fish and other aquatic life. Primary water quality concerns include potential aquatic life toxicity and domestic water supply use impacts associated with pesticides, mercury and methylmercury accumulation in the food chain, erosion and sediment transport/deposition, and temperature impacts to coldwater species (Sacramento River Watershed Program 2006).

For the Antidegradation Analysis completed concurrently with this document for the Central Valley SNMP, water quality data available from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Quality Portal were compiled for select major water bodies in the Sacramento Valley (Larry Walker Associates 2016a). The data compilation focused on electrical conductivity (EC), nitrate, aluminum, manganese, turbidity, and other constituents with secondary drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCL), because the Central Valley SNMP proposes new polices, strategies, and guidance that would affect the regulation of these parameters. In addition, several watershed sanitary surveys were reviewed to supplement the information developed from the data compilation (Larry Walker Associates 2016a).

When compared to other areas within the Central Valley, surface waters in the region generally have low salt and nitrate levels. The northern reaches of the Sacramento River have very low salt concentrations. As the water travels south through the valley, contact with natural salts in the soil, as well as agricultural and industrial anthropogenic activities can elevate salt and nitrate concentrations. Surface waters within the Sacramento Valley consistently have total nitrate concentrations less than 10 millgrams per liter as nitrogen (mg/L-N) and EC levels less than 1,000 µmhos/cm (Larry Walker Associates 2016a). EC levels at the evaluated stations are typically in the low 100 µmhos/cm, with the exception of the Colusa Basin Drain, which has levels upwards to 1,000 µmhos/cm.

Compiled data show that within the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region aluminum (dissolved), iron (dissolved), and manganese (dissolved) levels are typically below secondary MCLs. Sample concentrations of total aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations were found to be greater than secondary MCLs. Notably, three water treatment plants (WTP) on the Sacramento River— George Kristoff WTP, Sacramento River WTP, and Vineyard Surface WTP—are able to treat iron and aluminum to non-detectable levels or very low detectable levels in treated water and less than secondary MCLs (Starr Consulting et. al 2015). These WTPs also are able to treat the source river water to meet the manganese secondary MCL (Starr Consulting et. al 2015).

Turbidity levels are seasonably variable, with the highest levels occurring in the wet season, typically in January and February.

Commented [A6]: This is an old reference. We are interested in other constituents, including organic carbon, pathogens, metals, turbidity, and temperature.

Commented [A7]: Please see comments in antidegradation analysis section regarding concerns on the sufficiency of data reviewed and evaluations conducted.



Median values for constituents with secondary MCLs, calculated from all of the available surface water monitoring data in CEDEN for all stations in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of surface water quality data for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs.

Analyte

Units

Secondary MCL

Sacramento River Number of Samples

Median

Aluminum, Dissolved µg/L -- 27 12.9

Aluminum, Total µg/L 200 45 130.7

Chloride, Dissolved mg/L -- 300 1.87

Chloride, (Form not specified) a mg/L -- 40 4.02

Chloride, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) 28 0.05b

Copper, Dissolved µg/L -- 422 2.11

Copper, Total µg/L 1,000 632 3.54

Iron, Dissolved µg/L -- 16 55.7

Iron, Total µg/L 300 143 415.5

Manganese, Dissolved µg/L -- 27 4.3

Manganese, Total µg/L 50 155 32.5

MBAS, Total µg/L 500 50 10.7

Silver, Dissolved µg/L -- 95 0.001

Silver, Total µg/L 100 180 0.004

Sulfate, Dissolved µg/L -- 296 1.98

Sulfate, Form not specified a (mg/L) µg/L -- 40 3.07

Sulfate, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) 198 6.62

Thiobencarb, Total µg/L 1 306 0.00044

Turbidity NTU 5 5,717 5.55

Zinc, Dissolved µg/L -- 241 2.12

Zinc, Total µg/L 5,000 484 4.86 Source: CEDEN, as cited and presented in Larry Walker Associates 2016a. Notes: a Values indicate probable representation of "total" fraction for analyte. b Limited amount of data compared to dissolved, resulting in lower "total" fraction value.

Certain water bodies in the region have been listed on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to exceedance of water quality objectives for constituents addressed by the SNMP (i.e., salinity parameters, nitrate, constituents with secondary MCLs). Of these constituents, only impairments associated with salinity parameters (i.e., EC, total dissolved solids [TDS]) are listed for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region (see Table 2). There are no CWA section 303(d) listings of metals or nitrate associated with protection of municipal water supplies in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region, though there is a listing for “nutrients.”

Commented [A8]: Median values are not sufficient for evaluation of SMCL issues. In addition, ranges and averages and annual, possibly running annual averages should be included.

Commented [A9]: This does not represent all constituents with secondary MCL. Missing color, MTBE, Odor, TDS, EC.



Table 2. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region.

Pollutant Water Body Rationale for Listing

Electrical Conductivity (EC) / Specific Conductance (SC) / Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Knights Landing Ridge Cut (Yolo County)

Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Spring Creek (Colusa County)


Tule Canal (Yolo County)


Pit River, South Fork Levels exceeded and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Nutrients Pit River, South Fork Not identified; impairment associated with the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use.

Source: State Water Resources Control Board 2015.

2.2.4.2 Groundwater

Groundwater quality in the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region is considered, generally, to be excellent. There are natural water quality impairments at the north end of the Sacramento Valley and along the margins of the valley and around the Sutter Buttes, where marine sedimentary rocks containing brackish to saline water are near the surface contributing to high TDS in these areas. Human-induced impairments are generally associated with individual septic system development in shallow unconfined portions of aquifers or in fractured hard rock areas where insufficient soil depths are available to properly leach effluent before it reaches the local groundwater supply. Manganese and iron have been found in wells at concentrations greater than secondary MCLs. (California Department of Water Resources 2003)

Groundwater quality analyses and mapping using high resolution techniques were recently prepared for Central Valley SNMP, described in the Updated Groundwater Quality Analysis and High Resolution Mapping (Larry Walker Associates et al. 2016). The high resolution work provides a detailed look at groundwater quality conditions for nitrate and TDS throughout the Central Valley floor and groundwater basins/subbasins within Region 5, including those located outside of the Central Valley floor. High resolution groundwater quality maps for three defined groundwater zones (upper, lower, and production zones1) within the Central Valley floor provide a highly refined and accurate characterization of the ambient groundwater quality and assimilative capacity at the groundwater basin/subbasin scale as well as at the Initial Analysis Zone scale2. The upper zone includes the depth from the bottom of the vadose zone to the top of the lower zone and where the Corcoran Clay is present, the upper zone does not extend below the Corcoran Clay. The lower zone includes the depth from the bottom of the upper zone to the depth of the bottom of the lower zone and within the Corcoran Clay area, the lower zone is

1 Refer to Section 2 of Larry Walker Associates et al. 2016 for an explanation of the delineation of zones. 2 Earlier groundwater characterizations were reported as a part of the aggregated Initial Analysis Zones analysis through the CV‐SALTS Phase I Initial Conceptual Model in Larry Walker Associates et al. 2013.



bounded at the bottom by the top of the Corcoran Clay layer. The production zone combines the upper zone and the lower zone and is defined as the portion of the aquifer system where the majority of groundwater production occurs. Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the aggregate (volume-weighted) nitrate and TDS concentrations by subbasin. Figure A-1 in Appendix A shows the locations of the basins.

2.3 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION

The San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region covers 15,880 square miles and includes the entire area drained by the San Joaquin River. It includes all watersheds tributary to the San Joaquin River and the Delta south of the Sacramento River and south of the American River watershed. For basin planning purposes, this region excludes the Tulare Lake Basin. (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016)

2.3.1 Climate

Precipitation in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region generally decreases from north to south with annual average ranging from 14 inches in Stockton to 10 inches in Madera on the valley floor (California Department of Water Resources 2013c, Western Regional Climate Center 2016). Although the Coast Ranges tend to prevent marine temperature effects, the northern portion of the valley receives a Delta breeze, decreasing temperatures during summer evenings. The southern portion of the region does not tend to experience this cooling effect. The warmer and drier conditions in the San Joaquin River watershed result in considerably less runoff compared to the Sacramento River watershed. (California Department of Water Resources 2013c)


The San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region contains roughly 3.5 million acres of valley floor, 5.8 million acres of mountains and eastern foothills, and 900,000 acres of coastal mountains. The San Joaquin Valley is one of the world’s most productive agricultural regions and agriculture remains the dominant economic sector in the region. Most of the valley floor is privately owned agricultural land, while much of the Sierra Nevada is national forest and government-owned public lands. Approximately 22 percent of the region (about 2.17 million acres) is occupied by irrigated agriculture. Main crops grown in the region include almonds, corn, alfalfa, grapes and processing tomatoes. The agricultural output is valued annually at more than $9.3 billion. (California Department of Water Resources 2013c)

Urban developments have increased in size over the last two decades, expanding onto the surrounding agricultural lands. Approximately 5 percent of the state’s population lives in the region and in 2010, the population was 2.10 million. A number of disadvantaged communities reside in the region and four of the most populous cities in the region qualify as disadvantaged. In addition, eleven federally recognized tribes live in the region. (California Department of Water Resources 2013c)



2.3.3 Hydrology

The San Joaquin River is the principal surface water body in the hydrologic region. The major tributaries that drain from the Sierra Nevada to the San Joaquin River within the hydrologic region are the Calaveras, Mokelumne, Cosumnes, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus rivers. As with the Sacramento River, flows in the San Joaquin River are influenced by precipitation (rainfall and snowpack/snowmelt), as well as reservoirs on the main stem and tributaries, which are managed for flood control, water supply, and/or hydroelectric power generation by the federal CVP, regional, and local water projects.

The San Joaquin Groundwater Basin is the main groundwater basin in the region. This basin covers both the San Joaquin River and the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Regions, and is divided into 16 groundwater subbasins, based on hydrologic, geologic, and political boundaries, covering 10,591 square miles of the Central Valley floor. Groundwater movement in the San Joaquin Valley is driven by local pumping stresses, but generally flows from the eastern foothills of the Sierra Nevada to the west toward pumping depressions and regionally groundwater flows to the north toward the Delta.

2.3.4 Water Quality


The surface water quality of the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region is primarily dependent upon the source of the water, geologic influence, land use, and reservoir operations. Streams in the western portion of the region are mainly ephemeral, with the downstream channels mainly being used to transport high salinity agricultural return flows to the main channel of the San Joaquin River. The eastern portion of the region is generally characterized by higher quality surface water derived from Sierra Nevada snowmelt. Maintaining surface water quality for beneficial use protection is a significant issue for the river, with elevated concentrations of salts, pesticides, and selenium, which occurs naturally in the soils, being of primary concern.

As described in the “Sacramento River Hydrologic Region,” water quality data from CEDEN and USGS databases were compiled for select major water bodies in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region for EC, nitrate, aluminum, manganese, turbidity, and other constituents with secondary drinking water MCLs to support this assessment and the Antidegradation Analysis for the Central Valley SNMP (Larry Walker Associates 2016a).

The compiled water quality data show that within the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region, the eastside tributaries (Cosumnes, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers) show EC levels lower than the recommended secondary MCL of 900 µmhos/cm, whereas tributaries to the west and southwest of the San Joaquin River (Mud Slough, Salt Slough, and Orestimba Creek) have EC levels that typically fall at or above 900 µmhos/cm. EC levels within the main stem San Joaquin River are highly variable and tend to decrease from Crows Landing downstream toward Vernalis, likely due to higher quality inflows from the east side tributaries.



Nitrate concentrations in the tributaries to the east of the San Joaquin River (Cosumnes, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne rivers) are lower than the primary MCL of 10 mg/L-N. Nitrate concentrations are higher in tributaries to the west and southwest of the San Joaquin River, with historical concentrations greater than 10 mg/L-N (Mud Slough, and Salt Slough), but with a median still below the primary MCL.

Aluminum (dissolved), iron (dissolved), and manganese (dissolved) levels are typically below secondary MCLs. The exception is Mud Slough and Salt Slough where median and average dissolved manganese concentrations are above the secondary MCL.

Turbidity levels in the San Joaquin River are high when flows first increase following storm events, then decrease during prolonged periods of high flows. In the summer months San Joaquin River turbidity increases as flow decreases, possibly due to the greater influence of agricultural return flows.

Median values for constituents with secondary MCLs, calculated from all of the available surface water monitoring data in CEDEN for all stations in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region, are summarized in Table 3.

Certain water bodies in the region have been listed on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to exceedance of water quality objectives for constituents addressed by the SNMP (i.e., salinity parameters, nitrate, constituents with secondary MCLs). Of these constituents, impairments associated with salinity parameters (i.e., EC, TDS) and metals are listed for the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region (see Table 4). There are no CWA section 303(d) listings of nitrate associated with protection of municipal water supplies or nutrients in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.



Table 3. Summary of surface water quality data for the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs.

Analyte

Units

Secondary MCL

San Joaquin River

Number of Samples Median

Aluminum, Dissolved µg/L -- 4 9.48

Aluminum, Total µg/L 200 --- ---


Chloride, Form not specified a mg/L -- 1,321 64.7

Chloride, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) 33 0.13

Copper, Dissolved µg/L -- 2,372 1.38

Copper, Total µg/L 1,000 3,851 3.44

Iron, Dissolved µg/L -- 15 47

Iron, Total µg/L 300 14 572



MBAS, Total µg/L 500 10 40.4

Silver, Dissolved µg/L -- 59 0.0013

Silver, Total µg/L 100 58 0.0034


Sulfate, Form not specified a (mg/L) µg/L -- 1,323 74.89

Sulfate, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) 11 0.99 b

Thiobencarb, Total µg/L 1 957 ND c


Zinc, Dissolved µg/L -- 2,097 0.99

Zinc, Total µg/L 5,000 3,510 4.95 Source: CEDEN, as cited and presented in Larry Walker Associates 2016a. Notes: a Values indicate probable representation of "total" fraction for analyte. b Limited amount of data compared to dissolved, resulting in lower "total" fraction value. c ND = non-detect; less than 10 percent of data reported with a detectable concentration.



Table 4. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.


Aluminum Carson Creek (WWTP to Deer Creek)

Concentrations exceeded secondary MCL of 200 µg/L.

Chloride Mountain House Creek (from Altamont Pass to Old River, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, southern portion)

Concentrations exceeded chloride secondary MCL of 250 mg/L.

Iron Deer Creek (Sacramento County)


Manganese Carson Creek (WWTP to Deer Creek)


Electrical Conductivity (EC) / Specific Conductivity (SC) / Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Del Puerto Creek Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Grasslands Marshes Exceedance of agricultural supply EC objectives (objectives not specified – pre 2006 listing)

Ingram Creek (from confluence with San Joaquin River to confluence with Hospital Creek)


Kellogg Creek (Los Vaqueros Reservoir to Discovery Bay; partly in Delta Waterways, western portion)


Hospital Creek Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Mountain House Creek (from Altamont Pass to Old River, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, southern portion)


Mud Slough (upstream and downstream of San Luis Drain)

Exceedance of agricultural supply EC objectives (objectives not specified – pre 2006 listing)

Newman Wasteway Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Ramona Lake (Fresno County) Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Salado Creek Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.





Salt Slough Exceedance of agricultural supply EC objectives (objectives not specified – pre 2006 listing)

San Joaquin River (Bear Creek to Mud Slough; Mud Slough to Merced River; Merced River to Tuolumne River; Tuolumne River to Stanislaus River; Stanislaus River to Delta Boundary)

Levels exceeded SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm and southern Delta EC objectives for agricultural beneficial uses (0.7/1.0 mmhos/cm). a

Sand Creek (tributary to Marsh Creek, Contra Costa County; partly in Delta Waterways, western portion)


Temple Creek Exceedance of agricultural supply EC objectives (objectives not specified – pre 2006 listing).

Zinc Camanche Reservoir Exceedance of 5 mg/L primary drinking water MCL.


Notes: a Listing is for exceedance of Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan EC objectives for the Southern Delta, which are 30-day running average

mean daily EC of 0.7 mmhos/cm for April 1 through August 30 and 1.0 mmhos/cm for September 1 through March 31.

2.3.4.2 Groundwater

In general, groundwater quality throughout the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses, though there are local impairments. Constituents of concern include TDS, nitrate, boron, and chloride. Areas of high TDS content are primarily along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and in the trough of the valley. The high TDS on the west side is primarily due to recharge of streamflow originating from marine sediments in the Coast Ranges. The high TDS in the valley trough is primarily associated with the concentration of salts due to evaporation and poor drainage. Nitrate may occur naturally or as a result of disposal of human and animal waste products and fertilizer. Boron and chloride are likely a result of concentration from evaporation near the valley trough. Aluminum, manganese and iron have been found in wells at concentrations greater than secondary MCLs. (California Department of Water Resources 2003)

As described in Section 2.2.4.2 for the Sacramento Hydrologic Region, detailed information regarding groundwater quality conditions for nitrate and TDS has been developed for the San Joaquin Hydrologic Region. Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the aggregate (volume-weighted) nitrate and TDS concentrations by subbasin. Figure A-1 in Appendix A shows the locations of the basins.



2.4 TULARE LAKE HYDROLOGIC REGION

The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region comprises the drainage area of the San Joaquin Valley south of the San Joaquin River. Valley floor lands make up slightly less than one-half of the total basin land area (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015).

2.4.1 Climate

The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region experiences scarce amounts of precipitation, ranging from an annual average of 11 inches in Fresno to 6 inches in Bakersfield (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). Temperatures on the valley floor are usually mild during the winter months; however, heavy frost occurs during most years and during cold spells the air temperature occasionally drops below freezing (California Department of Water Resources 2013d).


Of the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region’s 17,000 square miles, 27 percent (about 2.9 million acres) is occupied by irrigated agriculture. Main crops grown in the region include almonds/pistachios, vineyards, corn, grain and cotton. In 2010, the population of the region was 2.27 million. Main cities include Fresno, Bakersfield and Visalia. Although agriculture remains the dominant form of land use in the basin, urban land use is increasing. (California Department of Water Resources 2013d)

2.4.3 Hydrology

The Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region has few natural surface water sources; most of these originate from Sierra Nevada snowmelt and are concentrated in the eastern portion of the basin. The basin is essentially a closed system, draining only into the San Joaquin River in extreme wet years (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015). This hydrologic region is part of the San Joaquin Groundwater Basin, comprised of the Tulare Lake, Kings, Westside, Tule, Kern County, and Kaweah subbasins, covering 4,783 square miles.

2.4.4 Water Quality


As described in the “Sacramento River Hydrologic Region,” water quality data from CEDEN and USGS databases were compiled for select major water bodies in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region for EC, nitrate, aluminum, manganese, turbidity, and other constituents with secondary drinking water MCLs to support this assessment and the Antidegradation Analysis for the Central Valley SNMP (Larry Walker Associates 2016a).

Where measured, nitrate concentrations in natural source waters are generally below 10 mg/L-N. EC levels in natural source waters are variable, but are typically below 1,000 µmhos/cm. However, irrigation drainage and canals can experience EC levels above 1,000 µmhos/cm (Larry Walker Associates 2016a).



Median values for constituents with secondary MCLs, calculated from all of the available surface water monitoring data in CEDEN, are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of surface water quality data for the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region for constituents with secondary MCLs.

Analyte

Units

Secondary MCL

Tulare Lake Basin Number of Samples

Median

Aluminum, Dissolved µg/L -- --- ---

Aluminum, Total µg/L 200 --- ---


Chloride, Form not specified a mg/L -- 49 4.17

Chloride, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) 4 32.2

Copper, Dissolved µg/L -- 476 1.5

Copper, Total µg/L 1,000 368 5.33

Iron, Dissolved µg/L -- 139 18.6

Iron, Total µg/L 300 49 145



MBAS, Total µg/L 500 --- ---

Silver, Dissolved µg/L -- --- ---

Silver, Total µg/L 100 --- ---


Sulfate, Form not specified a (mg/L) µg/L -- 49 5.64

Sulfate, Total mg/L 250 (recommended) --- ---

Thiobencarb, Total µg/L 1 177 ND c


Zinc, Dissolved µg/L -- 279 1.82

Zinc, Total µg/L 5,000 392 7.14 Source: CEDEN, as cited and presented in Larry Walker Associates 2016a. Notes: a Values indicate probable representation of "total" fraction for analyte. b Limited amount of data compared to dissolved, resulting in lower "total" fraction value. c ND = non-detect; less than 10 percent of data reported with a detectable concentration.

Certain water bodies in the region have been listed on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to exceedance of water quality objectives for constituents addressed by the SNMP (i.e., salinity parameters, nitrate, constituents with secondary MCLs). Of these constituents, only impairments associated with salinity parameters (i.e., EC, TDS) are listed for the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region (see Table 6). There are no CWA section 303(d)



listings of metals or nitrate associated with protection of municipal water supplies in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region.

Table 6. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and constituents with secondary MCLs in the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region.


Electrical Conductivity (EC) Kings River, Lower (Island Weir to Stinson and Empire Weirs)

Levels exceeded Tulare Basin Plan EC objective of 300 µmhos/cm.


2.4.4.2 Groundwater

East side waters in the basin originate from the Sierra Nevada and reflect their source in the crystalline granitic rocks. Due to mineralogy, TDS concentrations are low, in the 100–300 mg/L range. West side waters originate from marine sediments, which are high in sulfate and sodium. TDS concentrations can be >1,000 mg/L. Because groundwater in the valley originates from the west side and east side, water quality is variable. The organic-rich fine grained sediments in this area can result in reducing conditions that cause metals such as iron and manganese to become soluble, sometimes in excess of drinking water MCLs. (Sholes 2006, California Department of Water Resources 2003) Aluminum has also been detected in wells above drinking water MCLs (California Department of Water Resources 2003)

As described in Section 2.2.4.2 for the Sacramento Hydrologic Region, detailed information regarding groundwater quality conditions for nitrate and TDS has been developed for the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Table A-1 in Appendix A presents the aggregate (volume-weighted) nitrate and TDS concentrations by subbasin. Figure A-1 in Appendix A shows the locations of the basins.

2.5 SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA

Surface water from the Sacramento River Hydrologic Region and the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region meet at the Delta, which ultimately drains to San Francisco Bay. The Delta is a maze of river channels and diked islands covering roughly 1,150 square miles, including 78 square miles of water area (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016).

Two major water projects, the CVP and the SWP, deliver water from the Delta to Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare Lake Basin, the San Francisco Bay area, as well as within the Delta boundaries. Table 7 presents primary inflow and outflow quantities for the Delta. The primary source of inflow to the Delta is the Sacramento River. The largest Delta outflow is to the San Francisco Bay, followed by SWP and CVP exports to south of Delta water users.



Table 7. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta inflows and outflows.

Delta Inflows and Outflows Annual Total (Thousand Acre-Feet) a

Percent of Inflow

Inflows

Sacramento River 12,777 80%

East Side Tributaries 633 4%

San Joaquin River 659 4%

Yolo Bypass 1,829 12%

Outflows

North Bay Aqueduct 43 0%

Contra Costa Canal 94 1%

State Water Project 2,496 16%

Central Valley Water Project 2,141 13%

Outflow to San Francisco Bay 10,247 64%

Source: California Department of Water Resources 2013b, Figure D-1.

Notes: a Volumes reported are for water year 2010 (a dry water year in the Sacramento Valley and a below normal year in the San Joaquin Valley).

The Delta is a primary source water for agricultural and municipal drinking water supplies. As such, salinity levels and concentrations of constituents with drinking water standards are of concern to these users. The primary water quality concerns facing municipal water suppliers that rely on the Delta as a source water are high concentrations of organic carbon and bromide in the source water (which can contribute to the formation of disinfection byproducts), pathogens, high nutrient concentrations (and associated taste and odor problems from algal blooms), and high TDS concentrations due to associated challenges with blending, groundwater recharge, and wastewater recycling (Archibald et al. 2012). The primary sources of salinity in the Delta are from tidal seawater intrusion from the Pacific Ocean through the San Francisco Bay and, to a lesser extent, from agricultural and other discharges in the Central Valley. The timing and distribution of salinity is primarily affected by flow, which is largely determined by water management in the Delta and its watersheds (California Department of Water Resources 2013b).

Certain water bodies in the Delta have been listed on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies due to exceedance of water quality objectives for constituents addressed by the SNMP (i.e., salinity parameters, nitrate, constituents with secondary MCLs). Of these constituents, the Delta has impairments associated with salinity parameters (i.e., EC, TDS), which are listed in Table 8.



Table 8. Clean Water Act section 303(d) listings for salinity-related parameters and metals with secondary MCLs in the Delta Region associated with municipal and domestic supply (MUN) and agricultural (AGR) beneficial use impairments.


Chloride Tom Paine Slough (in Delta Waterways, southern portion)

Concentrations exceeded chloride secondary MCL of 250 mg/L.


Delta waterways (export area, northwestern portion, southern portion, western portion)

Exceedance of agricultural supply EC objectives

Hospital Creek Levels exceeded TDS secondary MCL of 500 mg/L and SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm.

Kellogg Creek (Los Vaqueros Reservoir to Discovery Bay; partly in Delta Waterways, western portion)


Mountain House Creek (from Altamont Pass to Old River, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties; partly in Delta Waterways, southern portion)


Old River (San Joaquin River to Delta-Mendota Canal; in Delta Waterways, southern portion)

Levels exceeded SC secondary MCL of 900 umhos/cm and southern Delta EC objectives for agricultural beneficial uses (0.7/1.0 mmhos/cm). a

Sand Creek (tributary to Marsh Creek, Contra Costa County; partly in Delta Waterways, western portion)


Tom Paine Slough (in Delta Waterways, southern portion)



Notes: a Listing is for exceedance of Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan EC objectives for the Southern Delta, which are 30-day running average

mean daily EC of 0.7 mmhos/cm for April 1 through August 30 and 1.0 mmhos/cm for September 1 through March 31.

3 REGULATORY SETTING

The Regulatory Setting discusses federal and state laws, plans, policies, and regulations that relate to development, adoption, and implementation of the proposed Central Valley SNMP and related policies.



3.1 FEDERAL LAWS, PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS

3.1.1 Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq) establishes the basic structure for establishing water quality standards and regulating discharges of pollutants to surface waters that meet the definition of water of the United States (defined in 40 C.F.R. § 230.3). The law authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set point-source effluent limitations for industry and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and requires states (or USEPA in the event of default by states) to set water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. It also requires that discharges from most point sources achieve the water quality standards. States may, at their discretion, include in their state standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances, subject to USEPA review and approval (40 C.F.R. § 131.13).

The CWA authorizes USEPA to delegate many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the law to state governments. In such cases, however, USEPA still retains oversight responsibilities. Such responsibility has been delegated to the State of California, which administers the CWA through the State Water Board and the nine regional water quality control boards.

Two particularly relevant programs resulting from the CWA are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and the requirement to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for impaired surface water bodies.

3.1.1.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program

The CWA prohibits anybody from discharging "pollutants" through a "point source" into a "water of the United States" unless they have an NPDES permit. A “point source” is defined in section 502(14) of the CWA as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.” [emphasis added]

Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the NPDES permit program. An NPDES permit includes effluent discharge limitations; prohibitions; receiving water limitations; compliance monitoring and reporting requirements; and other provisions. An NPDES permit may be an individual permit issued directly to a single discharger (or in certain instances to multiple co-permittees) or a general permit written to cover multiple dischargers with similar operations and types of discharges. Individual permits are written to reflect site-specific conditions based on information submitted by the discharger in a permit application. A general permit is issued to no one in particular with multiple dischargers obtaining coverage under that general permit after it is issued, consistent with the permit eligibility and authorization provisions. Section 402 of the CWA specifies limitations on the NPDES permit requirement for certain types of discharges;



NPDES permits for discharges composed entirely of return flows from irrigated agriculture are not required.

3.1.1.2 Section 303(d) Impaired Waters

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop lists of water bodies or segments of water bodies that will not attain water quality standards after implementation of minimum required levels of treatment by point-source dischargers. A segment of a water body identified as impaired (i.e., not attaining water quality standards) is described as a water quality-limited segment. Section 303(d) requires states to develop a TMDL for each of the listed pollutant and water body combinations for which there is an impairment. A TMDL is the amount of loading of a given constituent that the water body can receive and still meet water quality standards for that constituent. The TMDL must include an allocation of allowable loadings for both point and non-point sources, with consideration of background loadings and a margin of safety. TMDLs may be established for water bodies impaired solely due to nonpoint source pollution (Pronsolini v. Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2002)). NPDES permit limitations for section 303(d)-listed pollutants must be consistent with wasteload allocations identified in adopted TMDLs.

3.1.1.3 Federal Antidegradation Policy

The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses, and provide protection for higher quality and outstanding national resource waters. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions (40 C.F.R. § 131.12):

(1) Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.

(2) Where the quality of the waters exceeds levels necessary to support the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the State's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing such degradation or lower water quality, the State shall assure water quality adequate to protect existing uses fully. Further, the State shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices (BMPs) for nonpoint source control.

(i) The State may identify waters for the protections described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section on a parameter-by-parameter basis or on a water body-by-water body basis. Where the State identifies waters for antidegradation protection on a water body-by-water body basis, the State shall provide an opportunity for public involvement in any decisions about whether the protections described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section will be afforded to a water body, and the factors



considered when making those decisions. Further, the State shall not exclude a water body from the protections described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the act.

(ii) Before allowing any lowering of high water quality, pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the State shall find, after an analysis of alternatives, that such a lowering is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. The analysis of alternatives shall evaluate a range of practicable alternatives that would prevent or lessen the degradation associated with the proposed activity. When the analysis of alternatives identifies one or more practicable alternatives, the State shall only find that a lowering is necessary if one such alternative is selected for implementation.

(3) Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of National and State parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.

3.1.2 Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. §300f et seq.) was passed in 1974 to regulate the nation’s drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources—rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater. The act authorizes USEPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. USEPA sets national standards for public water systems based on science to protect against health risks, considering available technology and costs. These National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set enforceable MCLs for particular contaminants in drinking water or required ways to treat water to remove contaminants. The owners and operators of public water systems are required to comply with primary (health-related) MCLs and encouraged to comply with secondary (nuisance- or aesthetics-related) MCLs. A public water system provides water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances to at least 15 service connections or serves an average of at least 25 people for at least 60 days a year. A public water system may be publicly or privately owned (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2004).

3.2 STATE LAWS, PLANS, POLICIES, AND REGULATIONS

The following sections discuss state plans, policies, and regulations relevant to the approval and implementation of the proposed Central Valley SNMP and related policies.

Commented [A10]: Need to include discussion on State Board, CA Division of Drinking Water primacy and more specific regulations that apply to our region. See comments provided later in document.



3.2.1 Statutes

3.2.1.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code § 13000 et seq) is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. The act requires the nine regional water quality control boards to adopt water quality control plans, which must consist of designation of beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives (Wat. Code §13050(j)). The implementation program for a basin plan must include: 1) a description of the nature of actions which are necessary to achieve the objectives, including recommendations for appropriate action by any entity, public or private; 2) A time schedule for the actions to be taken; and 3) a description of surveillance to be undertaken to determine compliance with the objectives. (Wat. Code § 13242).

Water quality objectives are used to protect beneficial uses that require a certain level of water quality for the uses to be attained. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act defines water quality objectives as “…the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area” (Wat. Code § 13050(h)). Water quality objectives may be stated in either numerical or narrative form. Water quality objectives may be applied on a geographic basis or applied to all waters within a surface water or groundwater resource for which beneficial uses have been designated.

The act also authorizes the State Water Board and regional water quality control boards to issue and enforce permits containing requirements for the discharge of waste to waters of the state, which is defined to mean “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” (Wat. Code § 13050(e).) . Regional water quality control boards may authorize discharges of waste to waters of the state by issuing discharge requirements referred to as waste discharge requirements (WDRs) (Wat. Code § 13263), or may issue waivers of discharge requirements (Wat. Code § 13269). Regional water quality control boards can also prohibit the discharge of certain types of wastes or the discharge of wastes in certain geographic areas (Wat. Code § 13243).

3.2.1.2 Human Right to Water

With the enactment of Water Code section 106.3, on September 25, 2012, California became the first state in the nation to recognize legislatively the human right to water, following two other state’s recognition of the right in their respective constitutions. Water Code section 106.3 states, in full:

“(a) It is hereby declared to be the established policy of the state that every human being

has the right to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes.

(b) All relevant state agencies, including the department, the state board, and the State

Department of Public Health, shall consider this state policy when revising, adopting,



or establishing policies, regulations, and grant criteria when those policies, regulations, and criteria are pertinent to the uses of water described in this section.

(c) This section does not expand any obligation of the state to provide water or to require

the expenditure of additional resources to develop water infrastructure beyond the obligations that may exist pursuant to subdivision (b).

(d) This section shall not apply to water supplies for new development.

(e) The implementation of this section shall not infringe on the rights or responsibilities

of any public water system.”

The State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 2016-0010 on February 16, 2016, adopting “the human right to water as a core value and adopts the realization of the human right to water as a top priority for the Water Boards.” The resolution includes a number of directives to State Water Board staff, including continued consideration of the human right to water in all activities that could affect existing or potential sources of drinking water, including revising water quality control plans and policies and permitting. This resolution does not expand the legal scope of the human right to water as described in Water Code section 106.3, alter the State Water Board or Central Valley Water Board authority and obligations under applicable law, or impose new requirements on the regulated community. The Central Valley Water Board adopted a similar resolution on April 21, 2016 (Resolution R5-2016-0018).

3.2.1.3 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which went into effect January 1, 2015, gives local agencies the authorities to manage groundwater in a sustainable manner and allows for limited state intervention when necessary to protect groundwater resources. The act specifically:

Establishes a definition of sustainable groundwater management.

Establishes a framework for local agencies to develop plans and implement strategies to sustainably manage groundwater resources.

Prioritizes basins with the greatest problems (ranked as high- and medium-priority).

Sets a 20-year timeline for implementation.

The act includes provisions to promote the formation of a groundwater sustainability agency, which is made up of one or more local agencies overlying a groundwater basin, and development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan. Overdrafted basins must achieve groundwater sustainability by 2040 or 2042, predicated on the completion of plans. Under the act, DWR has the lead role in working with local agencies in implementing its provisions. (Water Education Foundation 2015)



3.2.2 Water Quality Control Plans

3.2.2.1 Central Valley Water Board Basin Plans

The Central Valley Water Board has adopted two water quality control plans: 1) Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (SRSJR Basin Plan) and 2) Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin (TLB Basin Plan; collectively Basin Plans). The Basin Plans define the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, implementation programs, and surveillance and monitoring programs (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015, 2016). Within the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins, unless otherwise designated by the Central Valley Water Board, all groundwaters in the Region are considered as suitable or potentially suitable, at a minimum, for municipal and domestic water supply (MUN), agricultural supply (AGR), industrial service supply, and industrial process supply (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015, 2016). Further, the Basin Plans specifically identify the designated beneficial uses for major surface water bodies in the Region in a table of beneficial uses (Table II-1 of the SRSJR and TLB Basin Plans). Unless specifically identified in the Basin Plans, all surface waters in the Region are designated with the MUN beneficial use. The Basin Plans identify water quality objectives that are applicable based on the designated beneficial uses of surface water bodies and groundwater or by geographic area.

MUN Objectives and Related Regulatory Requirements

The Basin Plans define MUN as “uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015, 2016).

Water quality objectives applicable when MUN is a designated beneficial use include the Chemical Constituents objective, which states, in part: (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board 2015, 2016):

“At a minimum, water[s] designated...MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table 64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449. This incorporation-by-reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the changes take effect...The Regional Water Board acknowledges that specific treatment requirements are imposed by state and federal drinking water regulations on the consumption of surface waters under specific circumstances.” [The final sentence is included only in the Chemical Constituents objective for inland surface waters.]

Commented [A11]: Please clarify that that there are numerous water quality objectives applicable to MUN, including the chemical constituents objective below.



The primary MCL specified for nitrate specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Table 64431-A is 10 mg/L-N; there is no secondary MCL.

The above referenced secondary MCL tables, Tables 64449-A and 64449-B are provided in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. These tables list the chemical constituents along with their respective MCLs for Table 64449-A or “Recommended”, “Upper”, and “Short Term” levels for Table 64449-B.

Table 9. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (consumer acceptance contaminant levels) in California Code of Regulations Table 64449-A.

Constituent Maximum Contaminant Level Aluminum 0.2 mg/L Color 15 Units Copper 1.0 mg/L Foaming Agents (MBAS) 0.5 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Manganese 0.05 mg/L Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 0.005 mg/L Odor Threshold 3 Units Silver 0.1 mg/L Thiobencarb 0.001 mg/L Turbidity 5 Units Zinc 5.0 mg/L

Table 10. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (consumer acceptance contaminant level ranges) in California Code of Regulations Table 64449-B.

Constituent (units) Recommended Upper Short Term Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L) or Specific Conductance, µS/cm1

500 1,000 1,500 900 1,600 2,200

Chloride (mg/L) 250 500 600 Sulfate (mg/L) 250 500 600 Notes: For purposes of implementation in WDRs, the MCL values for specific conductance are expressed as electrical conductivity.

While the Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, section 64449 tables are referenced in the Basin Plans, the associated text contained in sections 64449 and 64449.2, with emphasis on 64449 (d) and (e), which provides context for the listed values in Table 64449-B, is not currently included or referenced in the Basin Plans. Consequently, neither of the Basin Plans provides guidance or policy on implementation when the Central Valley Water Board is developing WDRs to implement secondary MCL-based objectives.

Lack of guidance or policy in the Basin Plans for implementation of salinity related secondary MCL-based objectives has resulted in permitting and compliance challenges when implementing the secondary MCL-based water quality objectives for EC and TDS in WDRs for dischargers to surface waters and groundwater, because often the lower “Recommended” value is used as the basis for establishing WDRs. In July 2009, the State Water Board adopted Order WQ 2009-



0005, which remanded in part the City of Lodi NPDES permit and directed the Central Valley



Water Board to consider further if releases of wastewater from the unlined storage ponds have caused groundwater to exceed applicable SRSJR Basin Plan objectives for EC. In the order, the State Water Board noted that the Chemical Constituents narrative water quality objective in the SRSJR Basin Plan incorporates only the secondary MCLs specified in tables from Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations section 64449 with their numeric values and does not specifically reference the monitoring, reporting, waiver or other provisions that provide context for application of the values in those tables. The State Water Board also found that the “Short Term” value of 2,200 μS/cm EC (1,500 mg/L TDS) is not appropriate as an applicable water quality objective because it is “intended to apply only on a temporary basis pending construction of water treatment facilities or the development of new water sources.”

Lack of guidance or policy in the Basin Plans for implementation of salinity related secondary MCL-based objectives also has resulted in compliance with secondary MCL-based WDRs, primarily for metals, being assessed conservatively using measurements of total recoverable metals, rather than using the dissolved fraction, and the Basin Plans do not provide implementation guidelines for an appropriate compliance assessment time period for the secondary MCLs. Finally, while the Chemical Constituents acknowledges that specific treatment requirements are imposed by state and federal drinking water regulations, the Basin Plans provide no implementation provisions for this text.

AGR Objectives and Related Regulatory Requirements

The Basin Plans define the AGR beneficial use as follows:

SRSJR Basin Plan: “Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching including, but not limited to, irrigation (including leaching of salts), stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016)

TLB Basin Plan: “Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching, including, but not limited to, irrigation, stock watering, or support of vegetation for range grazing.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015)

The one difference between the two is the inclusion of the phrase “(including leaching of salts)” in the SRSJR Basin Plan definition.

The Basin Plans establish criteria for making exceptions to the presumptive application of the AGR beneficial use to groundwater. Of relevance to the proposed SNMP is the exception to the AGR beneficial use where, “There is pollution, either by natural processes or by human activity (unrelated to a specific pollution incident), that cannot reasonably be treated for agricultural use using either Best Management Practices or best economically achievable treatment practices.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015, 2016)

Salinity-related water quality objectives specified in the SRSJR Basin Plan for protection of the AGR beneficial use in groundwater consist only of the narrative Chemical Constituents objective, which states, “Groundwaters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations

Commented [A12]: There has been no clear information provided on why non‐salinity SMCLs needed to be included in the SMCL guidance. What are the problems, including constituents and implementation issues? Then these issues should be evaluated and addressed in the Attachment A‐9 SMCL Guidance and this SED and its associated documents. Without clear information on the problem, it is very unclear how there was a determination of no significant impacts to downstream water quality, as well as how future impacts to MUN will be prevented.



that adversely affect beneficial uses.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016) The TLB Basin Plan includes the same narrative Chemical Constituents objective (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015). In addition, the TLB Basin Plan establishes a policy that allows for controlling the rate of increase of salinity by regulating both the maximum increase in salinity concentrations attributable to consumptive use (“maximum EC shall not exceed the quality of the source water plus 500 µmhos/cm”) and the maximum average annual increase in groundwater salinity on a basin-specific basis (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015):

“All groundwaters shall be maintained as close to natural concentrations of dissolved matter as is reasonable considering careful use and management of water resources.”

“No proven means exist at present that will allow ongoing human activity in the Basin and maintain groundwater salinity at current levels throughout the Basin. Accordingly, the water quality objectives for groundwater salinity control the rate of increase.”

“The maximum average annual increase in salinity measured as electrical conductivity shall not exceed the values specified in Table III-4 for each hydrographic unit shown on Figure III-1.”

“The average annual increase in electrical conductivity will be determined from monitoring data by calculation of a cumulative average annual increase over a 5-year period.”

The maximum average increase in EC allowed varies by hydrographic unit, ranging from 1 microseimen per centimeter (µS/cm) to 6 µS/cm in the west side (north and south) and Tule River and Pose hydrographic units, respectively.

To interpret the narrative Chemical Constituents objective for protection of the AGR beneficial use when developing WDRs, the Central Valley Water Board has, at times, used 450 mg/L as the threshold for TDS and 700 µmhos/cm for EC, which are based on guidelines in Ayers and Westcot (1985). However, the State Water Board has found, in Order WQO-2004-0010, that these threshold cannot be interpreted as an absolute values to be applied in WDRs. Rather, the Central Valley Water Board must determine whether site-specific conditions applicable to the discharge allow some relaxation in these thresholds.

Finally, the Central Valley Water Board has evaluated compliance with water quality objectives for protection of AGR at First Encountered Groundwater, defined as the top of the saturated zone of the shallowest groundwater, as a conservative means of protecting the remaining saturated zone.

Additional Salinity-Related Objectives for Inland Surface Waters

In addition to the above described EC and TDS objectives for protection of MUN and AGR beneficial uses, both the TLB and SRSJR Basin Plans contain water quality objectives for EC and TDS for inland surface waters that are not tied to a specific beneficial use.



The SRSJR Basin Plan, Table III-3, lists site-specific salinity objectives for inland surface waters for:

EC for portions of the Sacramento River, Feather River (including North Fork and Middle Fork), and San Joaquin River, expressed as a 50th percentile and 90th percentile for the Sacramento River, and just a 90th percentile for the Feather River and San Joaquin River; and

TDS for the American River (including North Fork, Middle Fork, and South Fork) and Folsom Lake, expressed as a 90th percentile.

To the extent of any conflict with the Chemical Constituents objectives, the more stringent shall apply. (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016)

The TLB Basin Plan contains a general salinity objective, which states, “Waters shall be maintained as close to natural concentrations of dissolved matter as is reasonable considering careful use of the water resources.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015) In addition, the TLB Basin Plan contains site-specific objectives for EC for specific locations on the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern rivers that are expressed as maximum, 90th percentile, median, and mean values (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015).

San Joaquin River Salt and Boron TMDL

The goal of the San Joaquin River Salt and Boron TMDL is to achieve compliance with salt and boron WQOs without restricting the ability of dischargers to export salt out of the San Joaquin River Basin. The San Joaquin River Salt and Boron TMDL has three specific purposes (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2004):

1. “To identify and quantify the sources of salt and boron loading to the river;

2. to determine the load reductions necessary to achieve attainment of applicable water

quality objectives in order to protect the beneficial uses of water; and

3. to allocate salt and boron loads to the various sources and source areas within the watershed which, once implemented, will result in attainment of applicable water quality objectives.”

To account for differences in salt and boron loading between different geographic areas, the watershed was divided into seven component subareas so that salinity management practices could be site specific. Using existing salt and boron water quality objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River at the Airport Way Bridge near Vernalis as a numeric target (see Table 11), the TMDL established waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources in the Lower San Joaquin River watershed. A linkage analysis of electrical conductivity and boron showed that compliance with the salt load allocations is expected to result in attainment of the boron objectives. The Central Valley Water Board is to use waivers of WDRs ore WDRs to apportion load allocations to the seven component subareas. In lieu of strict salt



load allocations under WDRs, dischargers may participate in a Central Valley Water Board- approved Real Time Salinity Management Program with relaxed load allocations (i.e., waivers of WDRs). Participation in an approved Real Time Salinity Management Program and attainment of WDRs at Vernalis constitutes compliance. The Central Valley Water Board approved a Real Time Salinity Management Program in December 2014. Salinity Water quality objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River upstream of Vernalis to the mouth of the Merced River are being addressed through the second phase of TMDL implementation. (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2016)

Table 11. Salt water quality objectives at Vernalis and boron water quality objectives for the Lower San Joaquin River between the mouth of the Merced River and Vernalis

Parameter Season Irrigation Season

(Apr 1–Aug 31 salinity) (Mar 15–Sep 15 boron)

Non Irrigation (Sep–Mar 31 salinity)

(Sept 16–Mar 14 boron) Salinity (EC) a 700 µS/cm 1,000 µS/cm Boron b 0.8 mg/L (2.0 monthly maximum) 1.0 mg/L (2.6 monthly maximum) Boron Critically Dry Water Years 1.3 mg/L 1.3 mg/L Notes: a Expressed as maximum 30-day running average. b Expressed as monthly mean.

Consideration of Natural Background Concentration

Consideration of the natural background concentration of a constituent relative to a water quality objective is addressed in each Basin Plan as follows:

The TLB Basin Plan states, “The objectives of this plan do not require improvement over naturally occurring background concentrations.” This finding applies to both inland surface water and groundwater quality objectives.

The SRSJR Basin Plan states, “These objectives do not require improvement over naturally occurring background concentrations.” To date, this statement has only been applied to groundwaters.

Both the SRSJR and TLB Basin Plans include the following text within Chapter 4 of the Basin Plans (Policy for Application of Water Quality Objectives): “However, the water quality objectives do not require improvement over naturally occurring background concentrations. In cases where the natural background concentration of a particular constituent exceeds an applicable water quality objective, the natural background concentration will be considered to comply with the objective.

The TLB Basin Plan also includes specific salinity implementation provisions in Chapter 4 governing consumptive use and controlled degradation. In particular:



Discharges to Navigable Waters “…shall not exceed the quality of the source water plus 500 micromhos per centimeter or 1,000 micromhos per centimeter, whichever is more stringent….”

For Discharges to Land “…maximum EC shall not exceed the EC of the source water plus 500 micromhos/cm.”

Water quality objectives for groundwater salinity are based on a maximum average annual increase measured as electrical conductivity, recognizing that, “no proven means exist at present that will allow ongoing human activity in the Basin and maintain groundwater salinity at current levels in the Basin.”

3.2.2.2 San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality Control Plan

The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (or Bay-Delta WQCP) establishes water quality control measures that contribute to the protection of the beneficial uses of the Delta (State Water Resources Control Board 2006). As with other state water quality control plans, the Bay-Delta WQCP identifies the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives for reasonable protection of the beneficial uses, and a program of implementation for achieving the water quality objectives. Elements of the Bay- Delta WQCP include export-to-inflow ratios intended to reduce entrainment of fish at the export pumps, Delta Cross Channel gate closures, minimum Delta outflow requirements, and San Joaquin River salinity and flow standards. The Bay-Delta WQCP contains specific numeric water quality objectives for chloride and EC at various locations in the Delta. Chloride objectives are for protection of municipal and industrial beneficial uses and EC objectives are protection of agricultural and fish and wildlife beneficial uses.

The Bay-Delta WQCP includes water quality objectives for EC for the South Delta. The EC objectives are 30-day running average mean daily EC of 0.7 mmhos/cm for April 1 through August 30 and 1.0 mmhos/cm for September 1 through March 31. On 1 June 2011, the Superior Court for Sacramento County entered a judgment and peremptory writ of mandate in the matter of City of Tracy v. State Water Resources Control Board (Case No; 34-2009-8000-392-CU-WM- GDS), ruling that the South Delta salinity objectives shall not apply to the City of Tracy and other municipal dischargers in the South Delta area pending reconsideration of the South Delta salinity objectives under Wat. Code §13241 and adoption of a proper program of implementation under Wat. Code §13242 that includes municipal dischargers.

3.2.3 Policies and Programs

3.2.3.1 Recycled Water Policy

In February 2009, the State Water Board adopted Resolution No. 2009‐0011, Policy for Water Quality Control for Recycled Water (Recycled Water Policy). The Recycled Water Policy was revised, specifically the monitoring requirements for priority pollutants and constituents of emerging concern, by an amendment (Resolution No. 2013‐0003) that was adopted by the State Water Board on January 22, 2013 and became effective on April 25, 2013. The Recycled Water



Policy encourages increased use of recycled water and local storm water, together with enhanced water conservation. The Recycled Water Policy requires local water and wastewater entities, together with local salt and nutrient contributing stakeholders, to develop salt and nutrient management plans for each groundwater basin in California. To ensure that such plans were developed in a timely manner, the Recycled Water Policy establishes criteria and timelines for their development. One of the overarching goals of the Recycled Water Policy is to develop salt and nutrient management plans (for groundwater basins or subbasins) that are sustainable on a long-term basis and to provide the state with clean, abundant water, local water supplies. The Recycled Water Policy also establishes criteria for approval of groundwater recharge projects using recycled water, and addresses control of incidental runoff and streamlined permitting for landscape irrigation projects.

3.2.3.2 Sources of Drinking Water Policy

The State Water Board Sources of Drinking Water Policy (Resolution No. 88-63) establishes a policy whereby all waters are considered suitable or potentially suitable to support the MUN beneficial use, with certain exceptions. These exceptions include:

Surface waters and groundwaters with TDS greater than 3,000 mg/L (5,000 µmhos/cm EC) and it is not reasonably expected by the regional water quality control boards to supply a public water system (Exception 1.a of Resolution No. 88-63).

There is contamination, either by natural processes or by human activity (unrelated to the specific pollution incident), that cannot reasonably be treated for domestic use using either best management practices or best economically achievable treatment practices (Exception 1.b of Resolution No. 88-63).

The Basin Plans implement this policy by designating the MUN beneficial use to all surface waters and groundwaters in the Central Valley region unless those waters are specifically identified as water bodies that are not designated as supporting the MUN beneficial use in the Basin Plans. Where the Central Valley Water Board finds that one of the exceptions of the policy applies, it may remove the MUN beneficial use designation for the particular body of water through a formal Basin Plan amendment and a public hearing, followed by approval of such an amendment by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law.

3.2.3.3 Antidegradation Policy

The state’s antidegradation policy is embodied in State Water Board Resolution 68-16, Statement of Policy With Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California. The goal of State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 is to maintain high quality waters where they exist in the state. State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 states, in part:

1. Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as

of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and



anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.

2. Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or

concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.

The Basin Plans implement, and incorporate by reference, the State Water Board antidegradation policy. In its implementation of Resolution No. 68-16, the Central Valley Water Board is charged with preventing or minimizing surface water and groundwater degradation so that high quality waters of the state are maintained consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state when issuing WDRs or determining an acceptable level of degradation in an equivalent process. Resolution No. 68-16 incorporates the federal antidegradation policy and requires that existing quality of waters be maintained unless degradation is justified based on specific findings. Implementation of the state Antidegradation Policy by the Central Valley Water Board is guided by Administrative Procedures Update 90-004 issued by the State Water Board in 1990.

In 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a ruling regarding application of the antidegradation policy and framework for antidegradation analyses in a case challenging the Central Valley Water Board’s WDRs for existing milk cow dairies (Order No. R5-2007-0035). In the ruling the court explained how to determine if receiving waters are high quality waters subject to protection under the antidegradation policy. Per the ruling the baseline water quality of the receiving waters is established and then compared to the applicable water quality objectives, if any, for those receiving waters. “[I]f the baseline water quality is better than the water quality objectives, the baseline water quality must be maintained in the absence of findings required by the antidegradation policy.” (AGUA v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th) This determination is made on a constituent-by-constituent basis, thus, before issuing WDRs, the Central Valley Water Board must first ascertain the quality of the receiving water for all relevant constituents, and then determine if the water is considered “high quality” for any of these constituents such that the Antidegradation Policy would apply.

The State Water Board, in its Draft Order regarding the review of General WDRs for growers within the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed, found that it is inappropriate to apply a discrete point source discharge approach in the context of a general order regulating both surface water and groundwater discharges from irrigated agriculture operations across a large landscape. The diffuse, landscape level groundwater discharges regulated under the Eastern San Joaquin General WDRs are unlike the concentrated discharges from dairy retention ponds and corral areas that were the subject of the AGUA ruling (State Water Resources Control Board 2016).

3.2.3.4 Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Policy

Onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) are potential sources of nitrogen and pathogens to surface water and groundwater if not properly maintained. As a result, the State Board adopted



Resolution No. 2012-0032, adopting the Water Quality Control Policy for Siting, Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS Policy). This Policy establishes a statewide, risk-based, tiered approach for the regulation and management of OWTS installations and replacements and sets the level of performance and protection expected from OWTS.

The OWTS Policy sets standards for OWTS that are constructed or replaced, that are subject to a major repair, that pool or discharge waste to the surface of the ground, and that have affected, or will affect, groundwater or surface water to a degree that makes it unfit for drinking water or other uses, or cause a health or other public nuisance condition. The OWTS Policy also includes minimum operating requirements for OWTS that may include siting, construction, and performance requirements; requirements for OWTS near impaired water bodies; requirements authorizing local agency implementation of the requirements; corrective action requirements; minimum monitoring requirements; exemption criteria; requirements for determining when an existing OWTS is subject to major repair, and a conditional waiver of WDRs.

3.2.3.5 Variance Policy, Salinity Variance Program, and Salinity Exception Program

The Variance Policy allows the Central Valley Water Board the authority to grant short-term variances from meeting water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) for non-priority pollutants, including salinity constituents and nitrate, to dischargers subject to NPDES permits. Point-source dischargers have the ability to apply for and receive an individual variance from meeting WQBELs for non-priority pollutants, including salinity constituents and nitrate. An individual discharger seeking a variance is required to perform environmental and antidegradation analyses of its discharge and the application for the variance must be reviewed and approved by the USEPA before provisions may be included in the discharger’s NPDES permit. The ability to apply for and receive individual variances for non-priority pollutants has no sunset date.

The Salinity Variance Program allows the Central Valley Water Board the authority to grant multiple discharger variances from meeting WQBELs for salinity constituents to municipal wastewater dischargers. The multiple discharger variance provides a streamlined approach for approving an individual discharger variance application. Variances granted under the Salinity Variance Program are not subject to USEPA review and approval before provisions may be included in NPDES permits. The Salinity Variance Program has a sunset date of June 30, 2019. This means that the Central Valley Water Board cannot approve new or renew existing variances after that date. Variance provisions that have been included in NPDES permits by June 30, 2019, will continue to be in effect until the expiration date of the provisions or the regional water quality control board modifies the conditions.

The Variance Policy and Salinity Variance Program apply to surface water discharges. Under the policy and program, a surface water discharger that demonstrates it is unable to meet an existing or proposed WQBEL based on a surface water quality standard, and/or an adopted wasteload allocation, can be granted an interim effluent limitation at a level higher than the current level of the constituent in the effluent if the granting of such an interim limit is consistent with maximum



benefit to the people of the state. The Salinity Variance Program applies to EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and sodium, and is specifically for wastewater dischargers that have or will implement local pretreatment, source control, and pollution prevention efforts to reduce the effluent concentrations of salinity constituents and are still faced with obtaining a higher quality municipal source supply or implementing costly treatment plant upgrades to remove salts.

The Salinity Exception Program establishes procedures for dischargers (municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, and dairies) to waters of the state that are not also waters of the United States, and discharges that are considered non-point sources, that are subject to WDRs and conditional waivers. This program allows these dischargers to obtain a short-term exception from meeting effluent or groundwater limitations for EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and sodium. This program is applicable to point and nonpoint discharges to groundwater, and is applicable to those dischargers subject to WDRs that face acquisition of a new source water supply or costly treatment to comply with effluent limitations and groundwater limitations for salinity constituents. Irrigated agriculture is regulated under surface water (non-NPDES) and groundwater WDRs. Irrigated lands dischargers may also apply for salinity exceptions from meeting receiving water limitations in surface or groundwater for salinity constituents. The Salinity Exception Program has a sunset date of June 30, 2019. After that date, the Central Valley Water Board cannot adopt or renew exceptions under this program. However, provisions that were adopted and in effect before that date will continue to be in effect until they expire or the Central Valley Water Board decides to modify the provisions.

3.2.3.6 Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program

The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) was created to address discharge of wastes (e.g., nitrate) from commercially irrigated lands. The goals of the ILRP are to protect surface water and groundwater and to reduce impacts of irrigated agricultural discharges to waters of the state. This is done by issuing WDRs or conditional waivers of WDRs to growers. These WDRs contain conditions requiring water quality monitoring of receiving waters and corrective actions when impairments are found. Options for regulatory coverage include joining a coalition, obtaining coverage as an individual grower under general WDRs, or obtaining an individual permit. All growers are required to submit a farm evaluation, either to their coalition or the Central Valley Water Board. The farm evaluation helps determine what farm practices are currently being implemented and whether any improvements can be made to protect water quality. Growers in areas where groundwater is susceptible to contamination or is known to be impacted by nitrate or other constituents associated with agriculture are required to have a certified nitrogen management plan. The number of acres of agricultural land enrolled in the ILRP is about six million acres and the number of growers enrolled is approximately 40,000.

3.2.3.7 Mixing Zone Policy

The Central Valley Water Board may designate a mixing zone within a surface water for discharges controlled by NPDES and storm water permits. A mixing zone provides a small zone of initial dilution in the immediate vicinity of a discharge. A mixing zone comprises a limited volume of water in which the concentration of a specific constituent may exceed its relevant water quality objective provided that the mixing zone is small compared to the total area of the



water body, does not impact beneficial uses, and the relevant water quality objective for the constituent in question is met at the edge of the mixing zone. The Central Valley Water Board can assign individual mixing zones for specific constituents, and follows guidance provided in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (United States Environmental Protection Agency 1991) or the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (State Water Resources Control Board 2005) when determining the appropriate dimensions of a mixing zone.

3.2.4 Regulation of Waste Discharges in the Central Valley

Based on the definitions and requirements of the California Water Code and the CWA, discharges can be generally divided into the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or other types of discharges (i.e. waste discharges to land or discharges that affect groundwater). Discharges to surface waters are regulated by permits issued under the NPDES program while discharges of other types are permitted through WDRs or waivers to WDRs issued under the Porter-Cologne Act.

In the Central Valley, as in other regions of California, regulated waste discharges include:

municipal and industrial wastewater;

municipal and industrial storm water; and

agricultural runoff from irrigated lands and from dairies/confined animal feeding operations.

The elements of the regulatory programs associated with these waste discharges to surface water and to land/groundwater were evaluated based on a review of recent permits to assess practices that result in the current conditions in receiving water as discussed below.


Point source discharges to surface waters that are waters of the United States are controlled through regulations described in both WDRs and NPDES permits. The requirements of section 402 of the CWA apply in addition to requirements under the Water Code section 13260 and section 13263. Current quality of surface water in the Central Valley is the result of dischargers generally complying with the effluent limitations established in NPDES permits. The current approach to implementation of state and federal requirements for wastewater, storm water and agricultural discharges to surface water is discussed below.

Wastewater

Wastewater discharges are regulated to control the impacts to receiving waters from municipal and industrial wastewater. Wastewater from municipalities is primarily domestic wastewater with some commercial/industrial discharges. Industrial wastewater discharges vary depending on the industry. This discussion is focused on industrial activities with the potential to discharge salts and nitrate.



Municipal

Municipal wastewater NPDES permits are used to regulate discharges to protect beneficial uses by including discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and special provisions. NPDES permits are subject to disapproval by U.S. EPA and are subject to renewal every five years. The Central Valley Water Board uses a standardized NPDES template to organize and describe the requirements that are applicable to each permitted discharger as described below. A subset of recently adopted permits was reviewed to determine typical current permit provisions3.

Discharge Prohibitions

Discharge prohibitions that are common to all NPDES permits include prohibiting bypass of treatment operations, creation of a nuisance, discharge of pollutant-free wastewater (e.g., rainwater, groundwater) or any discharge in a manner different than described in the permit. In addition, site-specific prohibitions may include restrictions on discharging under conditions of low receiving water flow or discharges that may not meet other regulatory requirements.

Effluent Limitations

Effluent limitations are the primary mechanism used to protect water quality and beneficial uses. Effluent limitations may be technology-based or water quality-based. Technology-based effluent limitations ensure that treatment processes are operating properly and address biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, bacteria, and pH. Standard limitations for biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids are established based on the type of treatment that is required by the NPDES permit (i.e., secondary or tertiary treatment standards). Technology- based effluent limitations also include flow, chlorine residual and percent removal. WQBELs are established to provide reasonable protection of beneficial uses. Water quality standards are established in the California Toxics Rule and the Basin Plans, as described previously. Effluent limitations are assigned for constituents that are determined to have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard in the receiving water.

In cases where a discharger shows that they cannot consistently comply with a WQBEL, the discharger can be granted a compliance schedule with interim performance-based limitations. This discharger must provide a plan and schedule to come into compliance with final effluent limitations that becomes part of the compliance schedule order. Site-specific objectives that consider conditions unique to the receiving water may also be developed.

Receiving Water Limitations

In addition to meeting effluent limitations, the discharges must not cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality objectives in receiving waters.

3 The municipal wastewater NPDES permits that were reviewed include: City of Lodi (R5-2013-0125-1), City of Manteca (R5-2015-0026), City of Stockton (R5-2014-0070-02), Mountain House Community Services District (R5- 2013-0004-01), Cities of Turlock/Modesto (R5-2016-0010), and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (R5-2016-0020).



Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

To verify that effluent and receiving water limitations are being met, every NPDES permit includes a monitoring and reporting program that outlines constituents to be monitored in effluent and receiving water, and describes the frequency, location and analytical methods to be used. In addition to monitoring for constituents with effluent limitations, monitoring of priority pollutants and other parameters are required to more completely characterize the discharge. Characterization monitoring is required one or more times during each permit term. For dischargers to the Delta, receiving water monitoring requirements may be met by participating in the Central Valley Water Board’s Delta Regional Monitoring Program.

Special Provisions

Special studies and other provisions are included for topics that may include the development of management practices or plans, specialized monitoring, or special studies to evaluate site- specific conditions (e.g., mixing zone/dilution, translators or water-effect ratios).

Specific Requirements Regarding Salinity, Nitrate and Secondary MCL Parameters

Most Central Valley wastewater NPDES permit includes an effluent limitation for EC. The EC limitation is typically an annual average based on current performance. Water conservation and recent drought have led to reduced flows to municipal wastewater treatment plants, which in some cases have resulted in increasing concentrations of salinity-related parameters, such as EC. However, in many cases, the total load of salts discharged remains relatively constant. Therefore, performance-based limitations may increase without resulting in any increase in load to the receiving water.

Municipalities also have a provision in their permit to develop and implement a salinity minimization and evaluation plan or salinity source control program to minimize salinity in effluent discharges.

Effluent limitations are also included for nitrate in some permits. Discharges found to have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to the exceedance of the primary MCL for nitrate in a receiving water designated as supporting the MUN beneficial use will be given an effluent limitation for nitrate set equal to the MCL of 10 mg/L-N, particularly where water bodies are considered impaired for nutrients.

In addition, non-salinity secondary MCL parameters (e.g., manganese, iron, and aluminum) that may be found at levels of concern in municipal wastewater also will be assigned effluent limitations if the MUN use is designated in the receiving water. Turbidity is usually controlled through operational specifications or through a receiving water limit, if the MUN use is designated in the receiving water. Sometimes this includes higher interim effluent limits until a discharger is able to install treatment to comply, which can take extended periods of time.

There are TMDLs for salt and boron applicable to the Lower San Joaquin River that also contain requirements for managing salts.



Industrial

Industrial discharges to surface water are regulated in much the same way as municipal wastewater discharges with the same NPDES permit elements and requirements. The specific effluent limitations assigned depend on the nature of the discharge. The industrial activities most likely to discharge significant levels of salt and nitrate are food processors and wineries. Regulation and impacts to receiving waters of these activities are discussed in Section 3.2.4.2, Groundwater.

Hatchery discharges to surface water were also reviewed for current permitting of salts and nitrate. Hatchery discharges to surface water (and groundwater) are regulated by the General Order for Cold Water Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (Order No. R5-2014-0161) with effluent limitations for formaldehyde, copper and chlorine. Surface water limitations are included for EC and TDS based on each Basin Plan and groundwater limitations are specified for nitrate (10 mg/L-N) and TDS (500 mg/L).

Storm Water

Municipal (Phase I and Phase II)

The Central Valley Water Board Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4). MS4 permits were issued in two phases4.

Under Phase I (starting in 1990), the Central Valley Water Board adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium (population between 100,000 and 250,000) and large (population greater than 250,000) municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to groups of co-permittees encompassing large metropolitan areas (examples include East Contra Costa County, Sacramento County, and City of Stockton/San Joaquin County).

On April 30, 2003, as part of Phase II, the State Water Board issued a General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s (Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) to provide permit coverage for smaller municipalities (population less than 100,000), including non- traditional small MS4s (e.g., military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospital complexes). The Phase II Small MS4 General Permit covers Phase II permittees statewide. On February 5, 2013, the Phase II Small MS4 General Permit was renewed and became effective on July 1, 20135.

The Central Valley Water Board adopted a region-wide MS4 NPDES permit (Order No. R5- 2016-00406) in June 2016 (effective October 1, 2016). While the primary focus is on enrolling Phase I MS4 permittees as their current permits expire, Phase II MS4 permittees have the option to enroll under this general permit and terminate coverage under the State Water Board’s Phase II Small MS4 General Permit.

4 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_permits/ 5 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_municipal.shtml 6 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_orders/r5-2016- 0040_ms4.pdf

Commented [A13]: Were industrial dischargers reviewed for potential contribution of non‐salinity secondary MCLs (like mines, groundwater discharges, etc.)



The Phase I and Phase II permits are structured very similarly and are used to regulate discharges to protect beneficial uses by including discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and special provisions. The Central Valley Water Board and State Water Board use a similar approach to organize and describe the requirements that are applicable to each permitted discharger. These requirements, as included within the Central Valley Water Board region-wide MS4 permit (Order No. R5-2016-0040) and State Water Board Phase II general permit (Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ), are briefly described below.


The NPDES permits include storm water and non-storm water discharge prohibitions.

The storm water discharge prohibitions incorporate applicable water quality control plan prohibitions as well as a prohibition on creating a condition of pollution, contamination or nuisance.

Non-storm water discharges into the MS4 must be effectively prohibited, where such

discharges are not authorized by a separate NPDES permit or conditionally authorized within the MS4 permit.7

The primary compliance approach (pollutant prioritization) allows the permittee to develop a customized storm water management plan8. The objective of the storm water management plan is to describe a storm water management program that identifies and addresses MS4 discharge impacts so that such discharges do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in waters of the United States (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 230.3). The storm water management plan includes milestones, strategies and activities, and corresponding schedules for implementation. In general, the permittee’s full compliance with the requirements in the NPDES permit, including timely implementation of the storm water management program, constitutes compliance with the discharge prohibitions.


Within the context of NPDES permits for MS4s, the CWA does not explicitly reference a requirement to meeting technology-based effluent limitations or water quality standards. MS4s must effectively prohibit non-storm water discharges and reduce pollutants in the discharge to the maximum extent practicable. However, requiring strict compliance with water quality standards by imposing numeric effluent limitations is at the discretion of the permitting agency. The permits include technology-based effluent limitations and WQBELs (while the Central Valley Water Board general permit uses these terms, the State Water Board Phase II general permit does not).

7 Conditionally authorized pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations section 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1), require the implementation of BMPs, or is a discharge associated with emergency containment or cleanup. 8 The secondary compliance approach (prescriptive) is reserved for permittees that are unsuccessful in complying with the requirements under the pollutant prioritization approach.



Maximum extent practicable is the technology-based standard.9 Meeting maximum extent practicable requires the continual assessment and modification of the storm water management program to ensure that the program is effectively addressing the pollutants of concern.

NPDES permits must incorporate WQBELs that are consistent with the assumptions and

requirements of applicable waste load allocations.10 In the context of MS4 discharges, WQBELs may be expressed in the form of either numeric limitations or, where authorized by the Basin Plan, BMPs.11 With the exception of certain WQBELs based on applicable TMDLs, the general permits do not contain numeric effluent limitations and, instead, include requirements to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable 12.

In general, the permittee’s full compliance with the requirements in the NPDES ,permit, including timely implementation of the storm water management program, constitutes compliance with the effluent limitations.


The general NPDES permits include receiving water limitations, which provide that the storm water discharges from the MS4 shall not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards in the receiving waters. The general permits incorporate/refer to applicable water quality control plan water quality standards. If exceedances persist, notwithstanding implementation of the storm water management program, the permittee must follow a process to identify if any modifications to the storm water management plan are necessary.

In general, the permittee’s full compliance with the requirements in the NPDES permit, including timely implementation of the storm water management program, constitutes compliance with the receiving water limitations. Final attainment of a water quality standard is demonstrated when the permittee’s MS4 discharges are no longer causing or contributing to exceedances of that water quality standard within the applicable receiving water or that receiving water is meeting water quality standards. Final attainment is verified through monitoring and reporting results.


The Central Valley Water Board general permit requires the development and implementation of a monitoring program.13 The goal of the monitoring program is to inform the permittee, to the extent feasible, about the nexus between the implementation of the storm water program, the quality of the discharges from the MS4, and the resulting impact, if any, on the receiving water.

9 CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii). 10 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B). 11 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k). 12 The applicable WQBELs and TMDL requirements are contained within Attachment G of both general permits. 13 Under the Phase II general permit some permittees may be exempt from the requirement to develop a monitoring program.



The monitoring program may include receiving water monitoring, source characterization, urban discharge monitoring, special studies, and/or TMDL monitoring. Certain permittees may participate in the Central Valley Water Board’s Delta Regional Monitoring Program to address all or part of the local water quality monitoring requirements.

As applicable, the Phase II general permit requires permittees to develop and implement monitoring programs for discharges to areas of special biological significance, to support TMDLs, for discharges to CWA section 303(d) listed water bodies to evaluate receiving water quality, or to evaluate the effectiveness of water quality projects or the storm water program.

Special Provisions

While the general permits do not include any requirements to conduct special studies, they recognize the use of these types of studies as a part of monitoring program; receiving water assessment; or effectiveness assessments.

Specific Requirements for Salinity, Nitrate and Secondary MCL Parameters

The primary location for parameter-specific requirements is within the TMDL portion of the general permits. The permits include TMDLs that have been adopted by the Central Valley Water Board or USEPA for pollutant specific issues within water bodies or segments of water bodies in Region 5. All permittees that are assigned a waste load allocation or identified as a responsible party where urban runoff is listed as the source must comply with the requirements as specified within the permit. Currently, there are no adopted TMDLs for salinity, nitrate or secondary MCL parameters that are applicable to MS4s in the Central Valley. The Lower San Joaquin River Salt and Boron TMDL concluded that stormwater contributes negligible salinity loads to the Lower San Joaquin River; less than one quarter of one percent of the river’s total salt load as measured at the Airport Way Bridge near Vernalis (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2004).

Industrial

The State Water Board first issued an NPDES Industrial General Permit (IGP) to regulate discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity in 1997 and subsequently reissued it 2014.14 The IGP regulates industrial storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges from specific categories of industrial facilities. The IGP requires the development of a site-specific storm water pollution prevention plan, which must include the information necessary to demonstrate compliance with permit requirements. The IGP is used to regulate discharges to protect beneficial uses by including discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, receiving water limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and special requirements and provisions. These requirements, as included within the IGP, are briefly described below.


The IGP includes storm water and non-storm water discharge prohibitions.

14http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2014/wqo2014_0057_dwq_rev_mar2015 .pdf.



Storm water discharges to waters of the United States are prohibited, except as explicitly authorized by the IGP or another NPDES permit. The storm water discharge prohibitions also incorporate applicable water quality control plan prohibitions as well as a prohibition on creating a condition of pollution, contamination or nuisance.

With the exception of certain authorized non-storm water discharges, non-storm water discharges are prohibited.


In the 2014 update of the IGP, the State Water Board determined that it is not feasible to establish numeric technology-based effluent limitations. However, the IGP requires dischargers to implement BMPs that comply with Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) requirements to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges. The IGP’s requirements constitute BCT for discharges of industrial storm water and authorized non- storm water discharges.

The USEPA established Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards (ELGs) for storm water discharges from facilities in eleven industrial categories. Storm water discharges from facilities subject to ELGs shall not exceed those storm water ELGs. For facilities where ELGs have been developed, compliance with the BAT/BCT and ELG requirements constitutes compliance with the IGP technology-based requirements.

The IGP includes annual and instantaneous maximum Numeric Action Levels. The Numeric Action Levels are not intended to serve as technology-based effluent limitations or WQBELs, and exceedance of these levels is not considered a violation of the IGP.

Dischargers must comply with TMDL-specific requirements, which may not be limited by the BAT/BCT technology-based requirements. The TMDL requirements are coordinated by each regional water quality control board. The State Water Board is in the process of amending the IGP to incorporate TMDL specific requirements.

In general, a discharger must implement minimum and advanced BMPs as necessary to achieve compliance with the effluent limitations.


The IGP includes receiving water limitations, which require that the storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges do not cause or contribute to exceedances of applicable water quality standards in the receiving waters, adversely affect human health or the environment, or contain pollutants in quantities that threaten to cause pollution or a public nuisance. If a discharge causes or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard, the discharger must implement additional BMPs or other control measures in order to attain compliance with the receiving water limitations. Compliance with water quality standards may, in some cases, require dischargers to implement controls that are more protective than controls implemented solely to comply with the technology-based requirements within the IGP. In



general, the discharger must implement minimum and advanced BMPs as necessary to achieve compliance with the receiving water limitations.


The IGP contains monitoring requirements that are necessary to determine whether pollutants are being discharged and whether response actions are necessary. Data and information resulting from the monitoring assist in the evaluations of BMP effectiveness, ability to meet Numeric Action Levels and ELGs, and compliance with the IGP.

Special Requirements and Provisions

While the IGP does not include any requirements to conduct special studies, it does have special requirements for plastic materials.

Specific Requirements for Salinity, Nitrate and Secondary MCL Parameters

While the IGP monitoring program includes some salinity, nitrate, or secondary MCL-related analytical parameters based on the type of industrial facility, the IGP does not contain specific programs or studies directed at these parameters. The following IGP requirements would trigger monitoring for salinity, nitrate, or secondary MCL-related analytical parameters:

Facilities subject to additional analytical parameters identified in IGP Table 1;

Facilities that identify these parameters on a facility-specific basis that serve as indicators of the presence of all industrial pollutants identified in the pollutant source assessment;

Facilities that identify these parameters associated with the industrial source assessment related to receiving waters with CWA section 303(d) listed impairments or approved TMDLs; and

Additional parameters required by the Central Valley Water Board.

These parameters may also be identified within the TMDL portion of the IGP. The IGP includes TMDLs that have been adopted by the applicable regional water quality control board or USEPA for pollutant specific issues within water bodies or segments of water bodies throughout the state that are applicable to industrial dischargers. Currently, there are no TMDLs listed for Region 5. The State Water Board is in the process of amending the IGP to incorporate TMDL-specific requirements.

Agriculture

Agriculture is not regulated through the NPDES program. WDRs have been adopted that do have requirements for surface water discharges from agriculture, as described below.

Irrigated Agriculture

Irrigated agriculture discharges are regulated by WDRs under the ILRP. Specific elements of the irrigated agriculture WDRs are described in Section 3.2.4.2. WDRs for irrigation agriculture

Commented [A14]: This section is insufficient. Information from Groundwater Irrigated Agriculture section below needs to be moved up here and appropriately discussed for surface water impacts in the Central Valley, including the various coalition orders as well as the individual order.



contain surface water limitations to address potential impacts to surface waters. In addition, the WDRs require that erosion and sediment control plans be developed and implemented to address potential impacts to surface water.

Receiving water limitations are applied to surface water as narrative objectives stating that wastes discharged from coalition member operations shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality objective. Trigger limits are established for constituents of concern. If the trigger is exceeded two or more times in a three-year period at a given sampling location, then a surface water quality management plan must be developed and implemented. A time schedule for addressing the water quality problem is required to be included in the surface water quality management plan and may not exceed ten years.

Dairies

Dairies are regulated by a General Order WDRs R5-2013-0122. The general order prohibits discharges of wastes or wastewater to surface waters unless authorized separately by an NPDES permit.

3.2.4.2 Groundwater

Current quality of groundwater in the Central Valley is influenced by discharges that generally comply with the effluent limitations and other requirements established in WDRs. The elements of WDRs and how they are designed to maintain and protect beneficial uses are described below.

Wastewater

WDRs for domestic and industrial wastewater follow the same general framework with certain differences associated with aspects that are unique to either municipal or industrial systems.

Municipal

Municipal wastewater WDRs are used to regulate discharges to protect beneficial uses of groundwater by including discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, groundwater limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions. A subset of recently adopted WDRs was reviewed to determine typical current provisions15.


Discharge prohibitions that are common to Central Valley WDRs for municipal wastewater discharges include prohibiting discharge to surface water, bypass of treatment operations, discharge of hazardous waste, toxic substances that would disrupt the treatment process, discharge of pollutant-free wastewater, or any discharge in a manner different than described in the WDRs.

15 The WDRs that were reviewed include: City of Lathrop (R5-2016-0028), Tesoro Viejo Mutual Water Company (R5-2016-0057), City of Fresno (R5-2014-0162), City of Sanger (R5-2014-0004), City of Tulare (R5-2013-0019).




Effluent limitations are the primary mechanism used to protect water quality and beneficial uses, and are established for flow and specific constituents. Flow limitations are established for average dry weather flow. The need for effluent limitations is discussed in the antidegradation findings in most WDRs. In cases where a discharger shows it they cannot consistently comply with a WQBEL, interim performance-based limitations are established along with a plan and schedule for the discharger to come into compliance with final effluent limitations.

Groundwater Limitations

In addition to meeting effluent limitations, groundwater limitations are established to protect beneficial uses. Limitations are established for salts (EC or TDS) and nitrate. The WDRs require that the discharge does not cause an exceedance of applicable water quality objectives.


To verify that effluent and receiving water limitations are being met, each WDRs order includes a monitoring and reporting program that outlines constituents to be monitored in effluent and receiving water and describes the frequency, location and analytical methods to be used. In addition to monitoring for constituents with effluent limitations, monitoring of other parameters may be required to more completely characterize the discharge. Characterization monitoring is required one or more times during the term of the WDRs.

Provisions

Provisions may include compliance schedules and operational requirements. For WDRs for facilities that produced recycled water, provisions related to operation of the UV disinfection system or other elements of the Recycled Water Program may be included in the provisions. Other provisions or discharge specifications may be related to storage pond management or solids disposal.


Central Valley WDRs include effluent limitations for TDS or EC, and nitrate. In addition, if necessary, effluent limitations are established for other constituents with secondary MCLs. Groundwater limitations are also established such that effluent will not cause an exceedance of a water quality objective or MCL in the groundwater. If the constituent concentration in the groundwater is greater than the water quality objective, then the groundwater limitation may be set equal to the current groundwater quality. In addition, specific wells may be designated for determining compliance with groundwater limitations.

Effluent limitations are also included for nitrate or total nitrogen and are set equal to the MCL of 10 mg/L-N. In the Tulare Lake Basin, effluent limitations for EC are set equal to 1,000 µmhos/cm or set equal to source water EC concentration plus 500 µmhos/cm, whichever is more stringent.

Effluent limitations may also be set for secondary MCLs to support the MUN beneficial use. In addition, effluent limitations for salts (e.g., sodium, chloride, boron) may be established to



protect the AGR beneficial use. In these cases, the SNMP is referred to as being used to set effluent limitations for these constituents in the future.

Industrial

Industrial wastewater WDRs for food processors and wineries, similar to municipal wastewater WDRs, are used to regulate discharges to protect beneficial of groundwater by including discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, groundwater limitations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions. These WDRs elements are described below based on a review of WDRs adopted in 2014–201516.

In addition to the food processors and wineries, WDRs for oil fields and mines were also reviewed. The WDRs that were reviewed were primarily associated with requirements to close these facilities and cease wastewater discharges. Oil field WDRs include limitations for EC, chloride and boron based on Basin Plan objectives.


Discharge prohibitions that are common to Central Valley WDRs include prohibiting discharge to surface water, bypass of treatment operations, discharge of hazardous waste, toxic substances that would disrupt the treatment process, discharge of pollutant-free wastewater, or any discharge in a manner different than described in the WDRs. In addition, food processors and wineries discharge to land application areas. As a result discharge prohibitions are established for residual solids and other wastes that may be produced that cannot be disposed of to the land application areas to prevent odors and/or nuisance. Many industrial WDRs also contain prohibitions against discharging domestic wastewater to the industrial disposal sites.


Effluent limitations are the primary mechanism used to protect water quality and beneficial uses and are established for flow and specific constituents. Flow limitations are established for average dry weather flow. Constituents requiring effluent limitations include biochemical oxygen demand and, depending on the discharger, TDS or fixed dissolved solids and nitrate or total nitrogen. The need for effluent limitations is discussed in the antidegradation findings. In general, effluent limitations are expressed as mass loading to the land application areas.

Discharge Specifications

In addition to effluent limitations, discharge specifications for the land application areas and for handling of solids are included in industrial WDRs. These specifications are associated with applying wastewater at agronomic rates and managing solids to minimizing leaching.

16 The WDRs that were reviewed for this summary include: Edison Grape Processing (R5-2015-xxxx), Sutter Home Winery (R5-2015-0085), Del Monte Foods (R5-2014-0116), Reedley Winery (R5-2014-0045), Morning Star Tomato Packing (R5-2013-0144), ConAgra Tomato Processing (R5-2014-0106), Oil Fields (R5-2013-0061), Zenda Mine (R5-2014-0138).




In addition to meeting effluent limitations, groundwater limitations are established to protect beneficial uses. Limitations are established for salts (EC or TDS), nitrate, and other constituents identified in Title 22. The WDRs require that the discharge does not cause an exceedance of an applicable water quality objective. In cases where the groundwater exceeds the objective, the groundwater limitation states that the discharge cannot cause a “statistically significant increase.” Compliance with these effluent limitations is determined at specific wells identified in the monitoring and reporting plan.


To verify that effluent and receiving water limitations are being met, each WDRs order includes a monitoring and reporting program that outlines constituents to be monitored in effluent and groundwater and describes the frequency, location and analytical methods to be used. Monitoring is required for constituents with effluent or groundwater limitations, general minerals and other constituents identified in Title 22. Monitoring of source water is also required in many industrial WDRs.

Provisions

Provisions may include time schedule orders and operational requirements. Work plans to develop or modify a groundwater monitoring network may be included in the provisions. In addition, requirements to develop Solids, Salinity and/or Nitrogen Management Plans may be included.


Effluent limitations for TDS are established as performance-based annual average limitations. For dischargers with levels of nitrogen that are a concern, nitrogen limitations are expressed as the nitrogen mass loadings that will not exceed the agronomic rate when applied to land application areas. Groundwater limitations are set depending on the ambient groundwater quality for nitrogen, secondary MCLs, and TDS or fixed dissolved solids. Solids, salinity or nitrogen management plans may be required. Other forms of requiring assessments of salt and nitrate include biochemical oxygen demand and nitrogen application and irrigation management reports and/or groundwater limitation compliance assessment plans. Monitoring for TDS, nitrate, MCLs and standard minerals in effluent and groundwater is also required.

Storm Water

Municipal (Phase I and Phase II)

The Central Valley Water Board region-wide general permit and State Water Board Phase II permit are both NPDES permits and WDRs. While they are primarily focused on surface water, they do include a requirement to protect groundwater quality when implementing infiltration BMPs so that the pollutants of concern are not transferred to groundwater. The permits also support improved groundwater recharge.



Industrial

While the IGP is an NPDES permit, and not a WDR, it does include requirements to protect groundwater quality when implementing infiltration BMPs so that the industrial pollutants are not transferred to groundwater.

Agriculture

Regulation of irrigated agriculture and dairies is implemented through WDRs as described below. WDRs for the Sacramento River Watershed, East San Joaquin and Tulare Lake Basin were reviewed to assess requirements for irrigated agriculture that contribute to current receiving water quality conditions. The General Order for Milk Cow Dairies was reviewed to assess requirements for dairies that contribute to current receiving water conditions.

Irrigated Agriculture

The Central Valley Water Board has adopted WDRs for discharges from irrigated lands to protect both surface water and groundwater throughout the Central Valley. The Central Valley Water Board’s ILRP implements the WDRs, which have been adopted for discrete regions within the Central Valley. The WDRs allow for a third party or coalition to coordinate efforts by growers within a discrete region to comply with the regulatory requirements. WDRs have been adopted for growers within the following coalitions:

Eastern San Joaquin Watershed Grassland Drainage Area Rice Growers within the Sacramento Valley Sacramento River Watershed San Joaquin County and Delta Area Tulare Lake Basin Area Western San Joaquin River Western Tulare Lake Basin Area

The WDRs include discharge prohibitions, receiving water limitations, provisions, and monitoring and reporting requirements, as described below, and specify the responsibilities of both the coalition and the individual growers. The WDRs for the Sacramento River Watershed (Order No. R5-2014-0030-R1), Tulare Lake Basin Area (Order No. R5-2013-0120) and the Eastern San Joaquin Watershed (Order No. R5-2012-0116-R3) were specifically reviewed for this assessment. The Eastern San Joaquin Watershed WDR is currently under review by the State Water Board and the action taken may change the regulation of discharges from irrigated agriculture in this part of the Central Valley in the future. However, the current WDRs were assumed to be representative of current practices and used to evaluate baseline conditions.


Discharges of hazardous waste are prohibited and discharges of wastes (e.g., fertilizers, fumigants, pesticides) to groundwater via backflow into a water supply well or down a groundwater well casing are prohibited.

Commented [A15]: Need to revise this section to represent groundwater impacts only and move surface water portions up to the correct section for review and consideration.

Commented [A16]: Rice is very different and should be included in the surface water discussion.




Receiving water limitations are applied to surface water and groundwater, and are narrative stating that wastes discharged from coalition member operations shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality objective. Triggers are established for constituents of concern. If the trigger is exceeded two or more times in a three-year period at a given sampling location, then a surface water quality management plan or groundwater quality management plan must be developed and implemented. A time schedule for addressing the water quality problem is included in the surface water quality management plan or groundwater quality management plan and may not exceed ten years. The proposed time schedule must be supported with appropriate technical or economic justification as to why the proposed schedule is as short as practicable.

Provisions

General provisions outline the responsibilities of the coalition and its members (i.e., growers). Provisions require individual growers to participate in coalition outreach events, implement water quality management practices, and develop and implement a sediment and erosion control plan, management practice evaluation program, farm evaluation plan, and nitrogen management plan. The coalition develops and implements a plan to track and evaluate the effectiveness of water quality management practices, conducts water quality monitoring and assessment, and prepare and submit annual reports on these activities. The coalition is required to conduct education and outreach to inform growers of program requirements and water quality problems.

Monitoring and Reporting

The WDRs require both surface water and groundwater monitoring. Surface water monitoring sites in the Sacramento River Watershed are categorized as representative sites, integration sites and special studies sites. Representative monitoring sites are representative of all areas and all types of irrigated agricultural waste discharge within the coalition’s area. Surface water monitoring sites are selected to allow characterization of water flow, quality, and irrigated agricultural waste discharges. Integration sites are used for identifying cumulative effects and long-term trends in water quality. Sites may also be designated for special studies, if needed, for a surface water quality management plan to evaluate commodity or management practice- specific effects on identified water quality problems, to evaluate sources, and to track the status of the identified water quality problems. Constituents that are required to be monitored include E. coli, EC, nitrogen compounds, total suspended solids, turbidity, and hardness.

In Eastern San Joaquin Watershed, surface water monitoring is linked to exceedances of trigger limits. Core monitoring sites are monitored on a rotating schedule and if a trigger limit is exceeded, then representative site monitoring and/or special studies sites are added. Constituents to be monitored are similar to those in the Sacramento River Watershed.

Groundwater monitoring requirements include preparing a groundwater quality assessment report, implementing a management practice evaluation program and conducting groundwater quality trend monitoring. Annual monitoring is conducted for EC, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature and nitrate. In addition, monitoring wells are sampled once every five years for TDS and general minerals.

Commented [A17]: Please update to include the differences between the Sacramento River Watershed and Rice Coalition Orders, which have very different monitoring requirements. Individual orders under the ILRP should also be covered, including the differences in monitoring approach between the coalitions and individual monitoring.




The WDRs require each member to develop a farm-specific nitrogen management plan. There are no specific requirements for salts or other constituents regulated by secondary MCLs. Triggers have been established for TDS (450 mg/L for the East San Joaquin Watershed Coalition and 125 mg/L for the Sacramento River Watershed Coalition) and nitrate (10 mg/L-N for the East San Joaquin Watershed Coalition) as stated in the monitoring and reporting program. If the trigger is exceeded, then a surface water quality management plan or groundwater quality management plan must be developed. Depending on the location or region, triggers are also established for other constituents with secondary MCLs. The WDRs also note that actions associated with achieving compliance with water quality objectives for salts and nitrate should be coordinated with the policies and actions of CV-SALTS.

Dairies

Dairies in the Central Valley are regulated by General Order R5-2013-0122 that include requirements for testing wells, applying fertilizer and manure to crops at agronomic rates, and meeting standards for properly storing and handling manure to minimize leaching and runoff. Requirements cover the facilities where animals are housed, waste facilities, and associated croplands.


Discharge prohibitions for dairies include the following:

• Hazardous waste; • Pollution, nuisance; • Dead animals to ponds; • Storm water to surface water; and • Land application of wastes if not for nutrient recycling.


The General Order does not include a section on effluent limitations. Groundwater limitations are narrative and state that the discharge of waste at existing milk cow dairies shall not cause the underlying groundwater to exceed water quality objectives, unreasonably affect beneficial uses, or cause a condition of pollution or nuisance. This section refers generally to Basin Plan water quality objectives.

Provisions

Provisions include requirements associated with management of wastewater retention ponds, production areas, and land application areas. Provisions specify practices to minimize leaching from solids disposal and to apply fertilizers at agronomic rates. In addition, nutrient and waste management plans and a salinity report are required.



Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring of groundwater is required and may be conducted on an individual basis or through a representative monitoring program. Most dairies perform this monitoring through membership in a representative monitoring program. All supply wells (irrigation wells and domestic wells) must be tested annually and results reported to the Central Valley Water Board. In addition, dairies are further required to install dedicated monitoring wells to sample “first-encountered” (shallowest) groundwater.

About 1,143 Central Valley dairies are members (95 percent plus of Central Valley dairies) of the representative monitoring program, paying monthly fees to support ongoing monitoring and research into improved management practices. The representative monitoring program includes 443 wells on 42 dairies from Orland to Bakersfield, representing the range of soil, climate and cropping conditions of Central Valley dairies. Wells are monitored monthly, including quarterly water quality analysis for nine constituents (including nitrate), annual testing for 22 constituents, providing 16,000 raw data points annually. The representative monitoring program evaluates all aspects of dairies that have potential to impact groundwater, including ponds, croplands and animal housing areas, with management practices for all of these areas being evaluated.


As noted above, the General Order contains requirements associated with the management of nutrients, solids and salinity. There are no specific requirements related to salinity, nitrate, and secondary MCL parameters in the General Order for dairies, other than how they may be addressed through the nutrient management plan, waste management plan, and salinity report.

Nutrient management plan. All dairies of any size must follow a nutrient management plan prepared by a certified agronomist. The plan requires sampling of manure, irrigation water and harvested plant tissue so that an application/removal ratio can be calculated field by field. Any manure exported from the dairy must be recorded and accounted for. Complete records must be kept on farm and an annual report submitted to the Central Valley Water Board.

Waste management plan. All dairies must have a waste management plan prepared by a licensed engineer. The plan must affirm that animal housing and manure storage areas are designed to prevent flooding and runoff, drain properly during normal operation and rain events, and are designed with sufficient capacity to safely handle and manage the manure generated until it can be safely applied to crops at the dairy or exported off site.

Salinity Report. A report must be prepared that identifies sources of salt in waste generated at the dairy, evaluates measures that can be taken to minimize salt in the dairy waste, and certifies that they will implement the approved measures identified to minimize salt in the dairy waste.

4 PROPOSED PROJECT AND NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

4.1 PROPOSED PROJECT

The Central Valley SNMP is built on the following three management goals:



Goal 1: Ensure a Safe Drinking Water Supply. The most important management goal for the Central Valley Region is to ensure that a safe, reliable drinking water supply is available to all residents of the region. The need to ensure a safe, reliable drinking water supply is the highest priority for the management of nitrate under the SNMP and is to be complied with as quickly as possible in all areas in the Central Valley Region.

Goal 2: Achieve Balanced Salt and Nitrate Loadings. This goal seeks to establish a balance of the mass of salt and nitrate in groundwater underlying each permitted or managed area, where reasonable and feasible. With regard to salt, balance is defined as achieving a state where inputs of salt (salt flux in) into a managed area are equal to outputs (salt flux out) from the same area. Similarly, nitrate balance means a balance of nitrate flux in and nitrate flux out of the permitted managed area. The nitrate mass balance will need to account for nitrate taken up by crops and losses of nitrate from the nitrogen cycle in soil, including denitrification in the root zone by soil microbial activity and volatilization to the atmosphere.

Goal 3: Implement Managed Aquifer Restoration Program. This goal seeks, where reasonable and feasible, to restore salt and nitrate levels within groundwater basins and subbasins or locally managed areas to concentrations that are below the applicable water quality objectives established for each constituent. Accordingly, SNMP implementation not only focuses on restoring the beneficial use where reasonable and feasible, but it also seeks to minimize or prevent further degradation of groundwaters that are currently meeting water quality objectives so that they do not become impaired.

The foundation for implementation of the SNMP is the Basin Plans, which establish the Central Valley Water Board’s existing regulatory authority to manage salt and nitrate in the region. However, the existing regulatory framework in the Basin Plans currently limits the Central Valley Water Board’s ability to consider innovative salt or nitrate management strategies, including strategies that are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Recycled Water Policy and goals adopted by CV-SALTS17. To address these regulatory limitations, CV-SALTS developed recommendations for modifications or clarifications to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation of innovative salt and nitrate management strategies to improve water quality. These recommendations are designed to facilitate implementation of the SNMP and efforts to achieve the salt and nitrate management goals. For the most part, the recommendations are not self-implementing and require adoption of amendments to the Basin Plans. The recommended Basin Plan amendments address the following topic areas.

Groundwater Management Areas o Default Groundwater Management Areas o Groundwater Management Zone Policy

Permitting and Management Strategies

17 The goals adopted by CV-SALTS include: sustain the Central Valley lifestyle, support regional economic growth, retain a world-class agricultural economy, maintain a reliable, high-quality water supply, protect and enhance the environment.

Commented [A18]: This should include aesthetics and economics for MUN use.



o Nitrate Permitting Strategy o Salinity Management Strategy

Policies and Guidance o Revision of the Exceptions Policy for Waste Discharges to Groundwater

(Exceptions Policy) o Salinity Management to Provide Reasonable Protection of AGR Beneficial Uses

in Groundwater (AGR Policy) o Revision of the Salinity Variance Program o Offsets Policy o Drought and Water Conservation Policy o Guidance to Implement Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (Secondary

MCL Guidance) o Guidelines for Developing Alternative Compliance Projects for Nitrate

Discharges o Factors to Support a Maximum Benefit Finding

The following sections provide a description of the key elements of these recommended management strategies, policies, and guidance. These descriptions are based on the CV-SALTS draft policy documents dated November 3, 2016, which are provided as attachments to the SNMP, and are incorporated by reference. For some policies, the CV-SALTS Executive Committee has identified optional approaches to certain elements, based on input from stakeholders, to undergo CEQA evaluation. These optional approaches are identified in the descriptions below and are considered part of the Proposed Project.

4.1.1 Groundwater Management Areas

4.1.1.1 Default Groundwater Management Areas

DWR Bulletin 118 defines, delineates, and describes the groundwater basins and subbasins in the Central Valley Region (California Department of Water Resources 2003). These basins/subbasins will serve as default groundwater management areas unless a group of dischargers elects to establish a management zone (see Section 4.1.1.2 for discussion of management zones), which may establish an alternative area for the management of nitrate in groundwater.

The Basin Plans for the Central Valley include requirements for the protection of groundwater quality through the establishment of water quality objectives and programs of implementation to achieve the water quality objectives. Currently, the TLB Basin Plan identifies groundwater basins and subbasins in Table II-2 that, for the most part, match those shown in DWR Bulletin 118. However, when DWR Bulletin 118 was last updated, several of the subbasins were deleted. TLB Basin Plan Table II-2 has not been similarly revised to reflect these changes. The SRSJB Basin Plan does not currently identify or enumerate specific groundwater basins or subbasins, as identified by DWR Bulletin 118.

Because the default level of salt and nitrate management established by the SNMP is at the groundwater basin/subbasin, it is recommended that the Basin Plans be amended to include the



current DWR Bulletin 118 list of groundwater basins/subbasins in the Central Valley Region.

This would require (a) minor changes to Table II-2 in the TLB Basin Plan; and (b) addition of a new table in Basin Plan Chapter II (Existing and Potential Beneficial Uses) to list the groundwater basins/subbasins for the SRSJB Basin.

4.1.1.2 Groundwater Management Zone Policy

The Groundwater Management Zone Policy recommends the Basin Plans be amended to include criteria for establishment and regulation of management zones for the purposes of groundwater quality management and control of nitrate. The Groundwater Management Zone Policy elements are summarized below.

a) Management zones would be a discrete regulatory compliance unit for the purposes of

complying with WDRs for nitrate. Dischargers have the discretion to join a management zone or continue to be permitted as an individual (or group under general WDRs).

Option: Management zones would not be available for evaluating compliance with WDRs; only as a means for collaborative groundwater basin monitoring, modeling, and other related assessment activities.

b) A minimum requirement of a management zone implementation plan is to be consistent

with the management goals of the SNMP, including: (1) addressing short-term and long- term drinking water needs affected by nitrate, (2) plan for achieving balanced nitrate loadings within the management zone (to the extent feasible and reasonable), and (3) plan for establishing a managed aquifer restoration program to restore nitrate levels to concentrations at or below the water quality objectives to the extent it is feasible and reasonable to do so.

Option: Include a goal to achieve balance and restore aquifer within 50 years.

c) Management zones would only be applied for the regulation and control of nitrate.

Option: Management zones would be allowed to address other constituents of concern to MUN uses (e.g., arsenic).

d) A management zone can be larger than one groundwater basin/subbasin for administrative

purposes, including providing drinking water within the area covered by the entire management zone. However, when developing implementation plans within a management zone, these plans should be developed only for areas that are hydrologically connected. In addition, assimilative capacity may only be allocated within hydrologically connected areas.

e) Fixed timelines are established for participation in a management zone: (1) a 270-day

timeline for dischargers who decide to work collaboratively to develop a Preliminary Management Zone Proposal, and (b) an additional 60 days for dischargers to submit their Notice of Intent with respect to which path for compliance they will choose—participate



in the proposed management zone that encompasses their discharge or continue to be

permitted as an individual discharger.

Option: Timelines are not fixed, but at the discretion of the Central Valley Water Board.

f) Management zones would be required to develop and implement an Early Action Plan,

which outlines the approach to provide drinking water to communities with nitrate- impaired wells.

g) Assimilative capacity within a management zone is determined on a volume-weighted

average basis in the upper zone of the delineated management zone boundary and within hydrologically connected areas. In general, the Central Valley Water Board should not allocate use of assimilative capacity based on a volume weighted average in the upper zone that would result in groundwater exceeding a trigger level of 75% of the nitrate water quality objective over a 20- year time frame, unless the Central Valley Water Board can properly find that use of assimilative capacity above this trigger level will not result in pollution or nuisance over the longer term.

Option: Limit determination of available assimilative capacity based on a volume weighted average in the first encountered groundwater (same as baseline/existing conditions).

h) Where assimilative capacity is not available for allocation, the management zone may

propose that an exception to meeting the nitrate water quality objective be granted in the management zone, subject to the requirements for granting an exception established in the Exceptions Policy.

4.1.2 Permitting and Management Strategies

4.1.2.1 Nitrate Permitting Strategy

The Nitrate Permitting Strategy proposes to amend the Basin Plan to establish pathways for compliance with nitrate groundwater quality objectives. The specific elements of the Nitrate Permitting Strategy are:

a) There would be two compliance pathways: (1) pathway for dischargers that want to be

permitted individually (Path A); and (2) dischargers permitted within a management zone (Path B).

b) For Path A (discharger permitted individually), the proposed policy provides for five

categories of discharges to determine appropriate waste discharge requirements: 1) no degradation; 2) de minimus; 3) degradation below 75 percent of the water quality objective; 4) degradation above 75 percent of the water quality objective, or receiving water quality is 50 percent of the objective and the discharge(s) occur in a basin where



concentrations in the upper zone exceeds the acceptable annual increase18; and 5) discharge above objective and no available assimilative capacity. Categories 3 and 4 include trigger language regarding trending of water quality upwards toward water quality objective.

For category 3 - Discharges will be considered as part of this category if the discharge occurs in a basin where concentrations in the upper zone does not exceed an acceptable annual increase and the discharger(s) anticipate using available assimilative capacity in baseline receiving water that is considered to be more than de minimus but will not cause the receiving water to exceed a trigger of 75 percent of the water quality objective for nitrate over a 20 year planning horizon. To allow use of assimilative capacity in this circumstance, the Central Valley Water Board may find it necessary to include additional monitoring and trend evaluations as part of the WDRs in order to make appropriate findings consistent with Resolution 68-16 and the SNMP

For category 4 – Discharges will be considered as part of this category if they anticipate using available assimilative capacity in the receiving water, and use of assimilative capacity will cause the receiving water to exceed the trigger of 75 percent of the water quality objective for nitrate over a 20 year planning horizon, or the receiving water is already at 50% of the water quality objective and the discharge(s) occur in a basin where the upper zone exceeds an acceptable annual increase in concentration. To allow assimilative capacity here, the discharger would need to submit an Alternative Compliance Project proposal to the Central Valley Water Board to be included as an additional condition in the WDRs in order to make appropriate findings consistent with Resolution 68-16 and the SNMP.

c) Proposed strategy provides the basis for determining whether a discharger must seek an

alternative compliance pathway. It depends on the categorization of the discharge, and the discharge’s impact on water quality. If there is an initial finding that the 0.1 mg/L nitrate trend has been exceeded, the discharger would be allowed to collect additional data and/or conduct additional analyses prior to requiring an Alternative Compliance Project proposal be submitted.

d) The alternative compliance pathway would likely include participation in projects to

deliver drinking water to communities with nitrate-impaired wells and to participate in projects to improve ambient groundwater quality in the long term.

e) Timeline for submittal of Notice of Intent regarding participation in a management zone

(or not) is directly related to timing of the need to indicate if the discharger is going to follow nitrate permitting strategy Path A or Path B, and is required 60-days after

18Acceptableannualincrease:upperzoneconcentrationsdonotincreasemorethan0.1mg/LNO3‐Nperyearusingcumulativeaverageannualincreaseoverafive‐yearperiod.



submittal of Preliminary Management Zone Proposal. Timeline for amending WDRs is left to the Board.

f) When allocating assimilative capacity, a simple antidegradation analysis is required for

category 1 and 2 discharges, and a complete antidegradation analysis is required for the other categories.

g) Allocation of assimilative capacity to individual dischargers is determined at shallow

groundwater19. For dischargers within a management zone will receive an allocation of assimilative capacity which is determined based on the water quality in the upper zone.

h) When allocating assimilative capacity to an individual discharger and the individual

discharger is within a management zone, the Central Valley Water Board will need to consider impact to available assimilative capacity in the management zone.

i) As part of the Notice of Intent for an individual discharger under Path A that falls within

categories 3, 4, or 5, the individual discharger would need to conduct an initial assessment to determine if the discharge (or collective discharges if under a General Order) is impacting any nearby public water supply or domestic wells for nitrate.

An optional approach to the Nitrate Permitting Strategy is provided below.

1) Compliance with SNMP to be determined on a permit-by-permit basis. Management

zone compliance with SNMP would not be an option.

2) All dischargers should be required to characterize their loading and impact of their loading on nitrate water quality in the immediate area of the discharge. This characterization would need to be conducted as part of a permit renewal application, or be ordered via section 13267 of the Water Code. In priority areas and upon notice by the Central Valley Water Board, individual dischargers should provide this information the Central Valley Water Board within 90 days. The Executive Officer shall have the discretion to extend the 90 days on a case-by-case basis due to special circumstances, but in no event should the extension be for more than an additional 90 days.

3) As part of the permit, dischargers shall then be required to assess their loading impact on

the subbasin area (as defined by DWR Bulletin 118). Dischargers will have the option to characterize loading and impact on the subbasin through individual efforts or as part of a cooperative-type program.

4) Permittees selecting the individual pathway for meeting item 3 would have one-year from

permit adoption to conduct the subbasin assessment, and permittees selecting to conduct

19 Shallow groundwater is defined by the Nitrate Permitting Strategy as: the shallowest level within the upper zone at which the groundwater would be considered to constitute an aquifer. In all cases, relevant groundwater does not include perched water (Attachment A-2 of the SNMP, Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability 2016).



the subbasin assessment on a management zone/subbasin basis in conjunction/cooperation with others would have one-year to develop the cooperative effort, and then one-year to conduct the assessment.

5) Based on the results of the individual characterization of loading as described in

paragraph 2 above, permittees would then need to determine their compliance pathway (i.e., use of assimilative capacity in shallow groundwater or through granting of an exception).

6) Assimilative capacity could only be granted if the discharge (or collective discharges if

the permit covered more than one permittee) would not cause or contribute shallow groundwater in a reasonably defined area to exceed 7.5 mg/L of N. Reasonably defined area means a local area and not on a subbasin basis. Any allocation of assimilative capacity would need to participate in local, regional and/or statewide efforts that ensure safe drinking water where nitrate contamination is of issue for the area in question.

7) If assimilative capacity was not available under the terms specified above in paragraph 6,

the permittee(s) would need to apply for an exception, and granting of an exception would be subject to the conditions in the exception option as set forth by the additional conditions within the Exceptions Policy options. In particular, any permittee(s) receiving an exception would need to be part of local, regional and/or statewide efforts that ensure safe drinking water where nitrate contamination is an issue for the area in question.

In addition to the above, a key distinction between the option and the proposed Nitrate Permitting Strategy is that whereas Alternative Compliance Projects have three distinct phases (short/long term provision of safe drinking water supplies; bringing basin into balance; restoration where reasonable and feasible), the option has no phasing and restoration of groundwater must occur concurrently with ensuring safe water supplies. Also, all groundwater basins must be restored within fifty years.

4.1.2.2 Salinity Management Strategy

The Salinity Management Strategy involves a phased approach of study and implementation to control salt accumulation in the Central Valley. Phase I consists of developing a Prioritization and Optimization Study to identify appropriate regional and sub-regional projects, including location, routing and implementation/operation of specific projects. Completion of the study is anticipated to take approximately 10 years, though the strategy recommends that the Executive Officer of the Central Valley Water Board be given the direct authority to extend this time frame if compelling reasons or adequate justification is provided for an extension. Once the Prioritization and Optimization Study is completed, Phase II of the Salinity Management Plan will be implemented. Implementation of Phase II, in whole or part, will occur as indicated in the Prioritization and Optimization Study, and after approval of any necessary Basin Plan amendments. Phase II will generally consist of environmental permitting, obtaining funding, and engineering and design, which is anticipated take approximately 10 years. Phase III would consist of actual construction of the physical projects identified in the Prioritization and Optimization Study, in particular a regulated brine line. Implementation of Phase III construction



of a regulated brine line is highly dependent on obtaining the necessary public funding, completion and approval of environmental impact studies, and other necessary approvals.

While the Prioritization and Optimization Study is being implemented, CV-SALTS recommends that the Basin Plans be amended to include an interim salinity permitting approach for discharges of salinity. This approach would allow the Central Valley Water Board to manage degradation while the long-term salinity efforts are being implemented. Because this approach is intended to be interim in nature, at the outset, CV-SALTS recommends that the interim permitting approach be set in place for 15 years to allow for implementation of Phase I of the Salinity Management Strategy. At the end of Phase I, the Interim Salinity Permitting approach may need to be extended to allow for implementation of Phase II, or to adjust the approach as deemed appropriate to implement Phase II. Any such change may require a Basin Plan amendment, which also takes time.

To implement the Interim Salinity Permitting approach in WDRs/conditional waivers, the Central Valley Water Board will need to renew/revise existing WDRs/conditional waivers and NPDES Permits. Further, during this interim period, there will be new dischargers, or existing dischargers seeking facility modifications, that will have salinity discharges. CV-SALTS recommends that the Central Valley Water Board, in cooperation with stakeholders, develop a process whereby a series of resolutions/orders that amend applicable WDRs/conditional waivers are considered for adoption by the Central Valley Water Board to implement the Interim Permitting Approach. Interim permit provisions would require dischargers to continue current reasonable, feasible and practicable efforts to control levels of salinity in their discharges while participating in efforts to conduct the Prioritization and Optimization Study. Such interim permit provisions may include, but are no limited to, the following, as applicable and appropriate: (1) implementation of salinity management practices and/or source control efforts; (2) implementation of pollution prevention plans, watershed plans, and/or salinity reduction plans; (3) monitoring for salinity in surface water and groundwater as part of existing monitoring programs, or through regional monitoring programs as appropriate, coordinated with the CV- SALTS Surveillance and Monitoring Program; (4) Maintain current discharge levels of salinity to the extent feasible, reasonable, and practicable while accounting for conservation, salinity levels in the water supply source and some appropriate increment of growth; and (5) comply with interim permit limits, to the extent that the Central Valley Water Board finds it appropriate and necessary to adopt such limits. Most importantly, discharges being permitted under this interim approach would be required to participate in efforts related to the Prioritization and Optimization Study, and subsequent Phases II and III as applicable. The level of participation would vary based on salinity in the discharge as well as local conditions, and the needed level of participation would be established by the lead entity that is overseeing the Prioritization and Optimization Study.

The resolutions/orders would establish the time-frame for application of the interim permitting approach, which could not exceed 15 years in length. For NPDES dischargers, which are subject to federal regulatory requirements, CV-SALTS recommends that as NPDES permits are renewed on their normal five-year cycle, that the Central Valley Water Board consider approval of a salinity variance per the Salinity Variance Policy, which would include a requirement to



participate in the Prioritization and Optimization Study in order to receive the variance for meeting applicable surface water quality objectives for salinity. Or, in the alternative, the Central Valley Water Board could consider a NPDES watershed-based permit for salinity as it deems appropriate, which too would require those covered by the watershed-based permit for salinity to participate in the Prioritization and Optimization Study efforts.

The resolutions/orders would need to include provisions that allow dischargers the discretion to opt out of participation in efforts to prepare the Prioritization and Optimization Study. For those dischargers that choose to opt out, CV-SALTS recommends that the Central Valley Water Board permit such dischargers by implementing the following principles:

1. Interpreting Narrative Water Quality Objectives - When it interprets narrative water

quality objectives for dischargers opting out, the Central Valley Water Board should select applicable salinity water quality objectives in a conservative manner. For the AGR beneficial use, the Central Valley Water Board should apply a conservatively protective agricultural goal (e.g., 700 ?hos/cen for electrical conductivity. However, in determining the agricultural goal that should be used to interpret the narrative objective, the Central Valley Water Board should consider whether a site specific agricultural goal has been developed and/or previously adopted for the discharger in question. If a site specific goal has been developed and/or previously adopted, CV-SALTS recommends that the Central Valley Water Board continue to apply that value if still appropriate. For the MUN beneficial use, the Central Valley Water Board should interpret water quality objectives in a manner consistent with the guidance contained in Attachment A-9, for Implementation of Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels.

2. Allocation of Assimilative Capacity - For dischargers opting out, no new allocation of

assimilative capacity, or expansion of an allocation of assimilative capacity should be granted by the Central Valley Water Board. However, if a discharger has previously received an allocation of assimilative capacity, and such allocation was granted with the support of an antidegradation study/analysis, then the Central Valley Water Board should continue to allocate the previously approved assimilative capacity if still appropriate. For groundwater dischargers wishing to opt out, this would essentially mean that they would need to show that they do not cause or contribute to exceedances of groundwater limitations for salinity constituents in shallow groundwater unless they had previously been permitted the use of assimilative capacity in the groundwater, and such previously authorized use of assimilative capacity was reauthorized by the Central Valley Water Board.

3. Issuance of Time Schedules - CV-SALTS recommends that the Central Valley Water

Board use its discretion to issue time schedules for meeting salinity limitations for those opting out sparingly, and for minimal time periods. In other words, a discharger opting out should generally be allowed no more than five years for meeting a restrictive salinity limitation. However, the Central Valley Water Board maintains the discretion to determine if a time schedule is appropriate, and the length, for dischargers seeking to opt out.



4. NPDES Permittees - For surface water dischargers subject to an NPDES permit that wish to opt out, the Central Valley Water Board needs to determine reasonable potential in a manner that is consistent with 40 CFR § 122.44(d), and should determine if a compliance schedule is appropriate based on current applicable laws and policies, including consideration of meeting the SNMP goals. When interpreting a narrative water quality objective to conduct a reasonable potential analysis, the Central Valley Water Board must employ principle 1 above. Further, NPDES permittees should not be allowed to opt out if they are seeking a new allocation of assimilative capacity (i.e., mixing zone/dilution credit) in a surface water for meeting the salinity limitation. However, the Central Valley Water Board should consider maintaining any previously approved mixing zone/dilution credits. Salinity variances would not be an available option for those seeking to opt out of the Prioritization and Optimization Study. In summary, NPDES dischargers wishing to opt out would essentially need to show that (1) the discharge does not have reasonable potential to exceed the applicable criteria; (2) the discharge is able to comply with a water quality-based effluent limit if there is reasonable potential; or (3) the discharge will be able to comply with a water quality-based effluent limitation subject to the terms of a compliance schedule approved by the Central Valley Water Board.

It is recommended that such resolutions be prepared and ready for Central Valley Water Board consideration within one (1) year of the Basin Plan amendments becoming effective. In the meantime, while such resolutions are being developed, CV-SALTS recommends that the Central Valley Water Board permit salinity discharges in a reasonable manner that looks to implementing the Salinity Management Strategy as set forth in the SNMP.

At the close of Phase I, or potentially at the end of Phase II, the Central Valley Water Board may determine that it is necessary to revise the Interim Salinity Permitting approach. This approach would be added to the Basin Plan at the end of Phase I, as determined appropriate and applicable at that time.

4.1.3 Policies and Guidance

4.1.3.1 Exceptions Policy

The Exceptions Policy recommends modifications to the existing Salinity Exception Program in the Basin Plans, which authorizes the Central Valley Water Board to grant exceptions for salinity constituents in non-NPDES program WDRs where it concludes that it is infeasible, impracticable or unreasonable to prohibit an otherwise non-compliant discharge to groundwater. The proposed modifications are summarized below.

a) The June 30, 2019, sunset date would be eliminated from the Salinity Exception Program

so that the Central Valley Water Board would be able to authorize new exceptions or reauthorize previously approved exceptions after this date.

b) The Salinity Exception Program would be expanded to authorize exceptions for nitrate;

the current program allows for exceptions only for EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and sodium. In order to ensure this is implemented as intended, it may also be necessary to



include total nitrogen and various forms of nitrogen (total inorganic nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, etc.).

Option: Expand program to also include boron.

c) The existing Salinity Exception Program limits term of an exception to 10 years. The

exception has a 5-year check-in requirement (the Central Valley Water Board can rescind exception if requirements not met) and can be reauthorized at the end of the exception. The proposed policy recommends:

i. No 10-year limit on an exception term; instead the Board has the discretion to

decide actual term.

ii. 5-yr check-ins still required regardless of length of approved exception and Board can still intervene to terminate exception at check-ins if conditions not met.

As a condition for reauthorizing/renewing an exception, dischargers will be required to periodically reassess BMPs and survey available treatment technologies to determine if feasible, practicable and reasonable compliance options have become available.

Option: Retain existing 10-year limit for exception term; exceptions can be renewed at 10-year intervals with no end date.

d) The proposed policy recommends revising the application requirements so that such

requirements reflect and implement the SNMP management goals. Further, the application requirements are recommended to be revised to distinguish what requirements are applicable when seeking an exception from a salinity-based water quality objective versus applicable requirements for seeking an exception from the nitrate water quality objective.

e) As a condition of authorizing an exception for nitrate, add a new provision requiring

dischargers to assure an adequate supply of safe, reliable and affordable drinking water in those areas of the groundwater basin or subbasin adversely affected by the non-compliant discharge (or discharges). The assurance must include a credible and realistic framework to construct/install a permanent long-term solution and an immediate commitment to make available temporary replacement water in the interim.

Option: Also add in the following new conditions for obtaining an exception:

“Best Efforts” are to be provided20.

20 The “best efforts” approach involves the Central Valley Water Board establishing limitations expected to be achieved using reasonable control measures. Factors which should be analyzed under the “best efforts” approach include the effluent quality achieved by other similarly situated dischargers, the good faith efforts of the discharger to limit the discharge of the constituent, and the measures necessary to achieve compliance. SWRCB Order WQ 81-5, at p. 7. The State Water Board has applied the “best efforts” factors in interpreting BPTC. (See SWRCB Order Nos. WQ 79-14, and WQ 2000-07).



Participation in a mitigation fund or other mitigation program that fully mitigates impacts to drinking water.

Participation in a program that restores the aquifer to meet water quality objectives within 50 years.

Option: In addition to above, the following specific performance measures are a condition for obtaining and renewing exceptions.

For obtaining an initial exception:

Long-term management plans show improved water quality trends over a 10 and 20 year horizon.

Long-term management plans show salt/nitrate balance and restoration of aquifer to meet water quality objectives in a short a time as practicable, but not to exceed 50 years.

For obtaining renewal of exceptions:

Demonstration that short-term drinking water solutions were effectively implemented.

Demonstration that mitigation fund / alternative drinking water projects have been effective and identification of additional actions, if needed.

Demonstration that aquifer restoration / mitigation projects have been effective and identification of additional actions, if needed.

Long-term management plans show improved water quality trends over: 1) a 10 and 20 year horizon at first and second renewal; 2) a 20 year horizon at third and fourth renewals.

Long-term management plans show salt/nitrate balance and restoration of aquifer to meet water quality objectives in as short a time as practicable, but not to exceed: 1) 40 years at first renewal, 2) 30 years at second renewal, 3) 20 years at third renewal, 4) 10 years at fourth renewal.

f) Retain the following justification within the Salinity Exception Program under a list of

conditions where the Board may conclude that it is infeasible, impracticable, or unreasonable to prohibit a non-compliant discharge: “Situations where compelling the discharge to comply with the applicable WDR (and assuming it was possible to do so) would not significantly improve water quality or assure attainment of the related standards in the foreseeable future (≈20 years).”

Option: Delete this justification from the Salinity Exception Program.

g) The proposed Exceptions Policy is silent with respect to timeframes for achieving salt and nitrate balance, and restoration of aquifers (i.e., goals 2 and 3 of SNMP).



Option: Establish a 50-year timeframe for achieving balance and restoration for both salt and nitrate. “Restoration” nitrate is defined by either: 1) 50 percent of MCL; 2) 75 percent of MCL; or 3) 100 percent of MCL.

h) Exceptions may be granted to individual dischargers, collective dischargers through a

management zone, by a third party group on behalf of its members, or other forms of collective groups of dischargers recognized by the Central Valley Water Board.

Option: Exceptions may only be applied on a permit-by-permit basis, not to a management zone.

4.1.3.2 AGR Policy

The AGR Policy proposes to amend the Basin Plan to assign AGR classes to groundwater basins or subbasins based on existing TDS concentrations and EC levels for purposes of interpreting the narrative Chemical Constituents objective for groundwater. Once a groundwater basin or subbasin is given an AGR classification, TDS concentrations (and EC levels) within the basin/subbasin would be managed within the range established for that class. The AGR classes are defined below.

AGR Class 1: EC < 1,000 μS/cm (TDS < 600 mg/L). Groundwater quality in the production zone that may be used as an agricultural water supply is generally suitable for irrigating all crops and all stock watering. This presumption is rebuttable on a case-by- case basis with the burden of proof falling on those claiming that EC levels at or below 1,000 μS/cm do not provide reasonable protection of existing AGR uses and that a site- specific EC value should be established.

AGR Class 2: 1,000 μS/cm < EC < 3,000 μS/cm (600 mg/L < TDS < 2,000 mg/L). Groundwater quality in the production zone that may be used as an agricultural water supply is generally acceptable for stock watering and for irrigating most salt-tolerant crops; it is not generally suitable for irrigating many salt-sensitive crops, except as a temporary, short-term alternative when higher quality water supplies are not readily available.

AGR Class 3: 3,000 μS/cm < EC < 7,500 μS/cm (2,000 mg/L < TDS < 5,000 mg/L). Groundwater quality in the production zone that may be used as an agricultural water supply is generally acceptable for stock watering but is not generally suitable for irrigating all but the most salt-tolerant crops, except as a temporary, short-term alternative when higher water quality water supplies are not readily available.

AGR Class 4: EC > 7,500 μS/cm (TDS > 5,000 mg/L). Groundwater quality in the production zone that is not suitable for either stock watering or crop irrigation AGR uses unless blended with lower salinity water. Areas within this classification should be considered for AGR de-designation.



The assignment of a groundwater basin or subbasin to an AGR class is based on the existing volume-weighted average of TDS concentrations in the production zone. When issuing WDRs/conditional waivers, localized areas with TDS concentrations higher or lower than the thresholds of the class assigned to the basin will be managed through application of state Antidegradation Policy and requirements of the SNMP or potentially through development of site-specific objectives.

Each AGR classification described above is rebuttable on a case-by-case basis, with the burden of proof falling on the discharger claiming that the specified EC/TDS ranges do not provide reasonable protection of existing AGR uses or, ranges are unnecessarily stringent and higher values should be applied to all or some groundwaters in the area, and that site-specific EC/TDS ranges should be established. Where such analyses are performed by groups representing water users in a defined area are found to be sound and approved by the Central Valley Water Board, the resulting ranges would take precedence over the default classification assigned to that area.

4.1.3.3 Salinity Variance Program

The Salinity Variance Policy proposes modifications to the existing Salinity Variance Program to align it with the SNMP and Salinity Management Strategy. The Salinity Variance Policy recommends that the current Salinity Variance Program be amended in the following ways.

1) Extend the provision prohibiting the Central Valley Water Board from authorizing new

salinity variances or reauthorizing previously approved salinity variances from June 30, 2019, to 15 years from the effective date of Basin Plan amendments that revise the Salinity Variance Program.

2) Extend application of the Salinity Variance Program to water quality-based effluent

limitations for salinity water quality standards that are related to the MUN beneficial use, and not just the AGR beneficial use.

3) Revise the current Salinity Variance Program to require participation in the Salinity

Management Strategy Prioritization and Optimization Study. The requirement to participate in CV-SALTS may also be appropriate, depending on if CV-SALTS is still intact for this purpose.

4) Make clear that salinity variances are intended to facilitate implementation of the phased

Salinity Management Strategy, and that salinity variances are not available to individuals/permittees that wish to opt out of participating in implementation of Phase I of the Salinity Management Strategy.

The conditions for authorizing the salinity variance would remain the same, except as revised based on the above.

Authorization for salinity variances may be granted by the Central Valley Water Board for individual dischargers or for multiple dischargers under a watershed based NPDES permit for salinity discharges. Terms and conditions associated with the granting of a salinity variance



would be incorporated into relevant NPDES permits, and failure to comply with such terms and conditions may result in the termination of the variance and/or an enforcement action.

4.1.3.4 Offsets Policy

The Offsets Policy proposes to amend the Basin Plans to allow the use of offsets for discharges to groundwater. Offsets would provide an indirect approach to partial or complete compliance with a WDR/conditional waiver requirement for a given pollutant by managing other sources and loads so that the net effect on receiving water quality from all known sources is functionally- equivalent to or better than that which would have occurred through direct compliance with the WDR at the point-of-discharge. Authorization to allow use of offsets would provide:

A mechanism to re-allocate the resources required to achieve compliance in order to produce greater public benefits (e.g., better net water quality, lower cost, less risk).

A mechanism whereby diverse dischargers within the same management zone can pool available resources to implement alternative compliance projects, in phases, on a risk- priority basis.

A mechanism to develop and fund large-scale, long-term regional water quality improvement projects (e.g., as described by the SSALTS or NIMS), by recognizing participation in such efforts as partial credit toward compliance.

Market-based incentive to establish a mitigation fund designed to develop and implement water quality improvement projects, which are useful for pooling resources of relatively small dischargers into a critical funding mass to support projects that would normally be beyond their individual means.

An offset allows for the management of other sources and loads (not directly associated with the regulated discharge) so that the combined net effect on receiving water quality from the discharge and the offset is functionally-equivalent to (and potentially better) than that which would have occurred by requiring the discharger to comply with its WDR at the point-of- discharge. In this regard, an offset project must be located within the same groundwater basin/subbasin or management zone as the regulated discharge. However, the Offsets Policy is also intended to incentivize implementation of some large-scale projects such as a regional regulated brine line or a mitigation bank established to provide safe drinking water. Key aspects of the Offsets Policy include:

When there is no assimilative capacity available in the receiving water, the offset must result in a net improvement in existing water quality (e.g., the offset ratio must be > 1:1) compared to baseline regulatory requirements. Offset ratios < 1:1 may be authorized only in accordance with the state's antidegradation policy unless an exception is granted or time schedule order or compliance schedule order allows a less stringent interim ratio to apply.



Offsets must be for substantially the same pollutant. Cross-pollutant trading (e.g., TDS for nitrate, nitrate for arsenic) should not be construed as true “offsets.” Such a cross pollutant offset may be more appropriate for a short-term effort with long-term efforts focused on the original pollutant of concern.

The proposed package (discharge + offset project) cannot result in unmitigated localized impairments (e.g., “hotspots”) to sensitive areas (especially drinking water supply wells) or have a disproportionate impact on a disadvantaged community. This situation can best be addressed, although not required, by implementing offsets within management zones that provide other mechanisms to assure water users remain protected. Downgradient well owners must be notified and encouraged to participate in the offset approval process.

Offsets must be approved by the Central Valley Water Board. The Board may elect to pre-approve specific offset projects (a 1-step process) or authorize the general use of offsets within a given order and then approve individual offset projects in subsequent Board actions (e.g., a 2-step procedure). All terms and conditions governing implementation of the proposed Offsets Policy must be enforceable through a WDR, Waiver or other enforcement order. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of an offset approved by the Central Valley Water Board could constitute a violation of the underlying permit or enforcement order.

Offsets apply to a specific discharge for a defined period. Offsets can be renewed but must be periodically reviewed and reauthorized by the Central Valley Water Board. The length of that period will be specified by the Central Valley Water Board when the offset is approved.

The terms and conditions governing an approved offset should specify the remedial actions that must be undertaken by the discharger, and the metric(s) used to trigger such obligations, in the event that the offset project fails for some reason.

The offset project must include a monitoring and reporting program sufficient to verify that the pollution reduction credits are actually being generated as projected and that these credits are adequate to offset the discharge loads in the ratio approved by the Central Valley Water Board. Pollutant removal, reduction, neutralization, transformation and dilution may all be acceptable means of generating offset credits (subject to appropriate verification).

In addition to the proposed policy, there are two options for how offsets can be used and the water quality to be attained.

Option 1: (a) Offsets could be used across groundwater subbasins and basins, and management zones; and (b) offset projects do not require attainment of water quality objectives in the underlying water, only progress toward attainment.



Option 2: (a) Allow use of offsets only in the specific area to which a discharge impacts; and (b) limit definition of an offset to only projects that result in water quality objectives being attained.

4.1.3.5 Drought and Water Conservation Policy

The Drought and Water Conservation Policy applies to both surface water and groundwater discharges, and proposes to eliminate barriers to the use of recycled water where compliance with WDRs for salinity (expressed as EC and TDS) during drought periods may be challenging. The Drought Policy proposes to amend the Basin Plans as follows:

a) For discharges to groundwater, calculate compliance with applicable narrative/numeric

salinity objectives using long-term (10+ year) flow-weighted average while simultaneously considering expected recharge and potential dilution from natural precipitation and streambed percolation to the same basin/subbasin.

b) Authorize the use of “Offset Projects,” particularly increased storm water capture and

recharge, to demonstrate compliance with WDRs governing salinity discharges. Allow offset credits to be created and banked by constructing and operating such projects or by discharging well below the WDR threshold in non-drought years. Recognize that the credits needed to achieve compliance during periods of drought normally must be generated at times of above normal precipitation (especially El Niño winters) and, as such, must remain valid for at least 10 years.

c) Establish a temporary variance/exception from salinity-related water quality objectives

during certain drought conditions. A variance/exception would be automatically activated when one of the following triggers occurs:

a drought emergency is declared by an authorized federal or state authority,

during an “Extended Dry Period”21 in Reach 83 of the Lower San Joaquin River (Merced to Vernalis) as defined by the SRSJR Basin Plans, or

declaration of a local emergency consistent with the California Emergency Services Act.

At such times, more appropriate interim WDRs or effluent limits, such as the short term MCL of 2,200 µmhos/cm EC, would apply.

21 An Extended Dry Period is defined using the State Water Resources Control Board’s San Joaquin Valley “60-20- 20” Water Year Hydrologic Classification included in the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan to assign a numeric indicator to a water year type as follows (State Water Resources Control Board 2006): Wet – 5; Above Normal – 4; Below Normal – 3; Dry – 2; Critically Dry – 1. The indicator values will be used to determine when an Extended Dry Period is in effect: • An Extended Dry Period shall begin when the sum of the current year 60-20-20 indicator value and the previous two years’ 60-20-20 indicator values total six (6) or less. • An Extended Dry Period shall be deemed to exist for one water year (12 months) following a period with an indicator value total of six (6) or less.



d) Establish a temporary variance/exception from salinity-related water quality objectives where the TDS/EC concentration in the permitted discharge is better (lower) than the TDS/EC concentration in the receiving water and will improve receiving water quality (even when the receiving water quality is higher than the SMCL) by promoting maximum use/reuse of available water supplies. Potential impacts to downstream/downgradient water quality must also be evaluated as part of this demonstration.

e) In lieu of authorizing a temporary variance/exception, consider pre-authorizing an

automatic allocation of assimilative capacity (where it exists) to accommodate higher TDS concentrations/loads in the discharge/recharge during drought conditions.

Option: The policy would also apply to boron.

4.1.3.6 Secondary MCL Guidance

The Secondary MCL Guidance proposes the Basin Plans be amended as follows:

a) Incorporate text from Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations section 64449 and section 64449.2 into the Basin Plans that provides guidance on the application of “Recommended”, “Upper”, and “Short Term” consumer acceptance levels for TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate in WDRs and NPDES permits.

Option: Only “Recommended” secondary MCL values may be used as the basis for WDRs.

b) Constituents concentrations ranging to the “Short Term” level in Title 22 of the California

Code of Regulations Table 64449-B may be authorized in WDRs on a temporary basis in those situations where construction of new facilities or connection to new water sources is pending as specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations section 64449(d)(3). Further, constituents ranging to the “Short Term” level in Table 64449-B may be authorized on a temporary basis due drought conditions when normal water supplies are not available.

c) Allow compliance with WDRs based on secondary MCLs in Title 22 of the California

Code of Regulations Table 64449-A for metals, color, and turbidity and in Table 64449- B for TDS, EC, chloride, sulfate to be determined from a filtered water sample (water passed through a 0.45 micron filter). For discharges to receiving waters that have been legally exempted from filtration requirements in the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, compliance is to be evaluated using an unfiltered sample.

Option: Compliance with WDRs based on secondary MCLs in Table 64449-A for metals, color, and turbidity and in Table 64449-B for TDS, EC, chloride, sulfate is based only on a non-filtered water sample.

Commented [A19]: Still no justification is provided for why this is necessary for Table 64449‐A

Commented [A20]: This option should be more simple, compliance with all constituents in Table 64449‐A based on non‐filtered samples.



d) Modify the Chemical Constituents objective for surface waters and groundwater in the Basin Plans to be consistent and account for natural background conditions. Specifically, in cases where the natural background concentration is greater than secondary MCLs in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Table 64449-A or the “Upper” level in Table 64449-B, the water body shall not exceed the natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources, unless the Central Valley Water Board authorizes it consistent with state Antidegradation Policy.

e) Allow the Central Valley Water Board to continue taking into consideration any dilution

or other attenuation that may occur between the point of discharge and downstream MUN designated water bodies and groundwater basins (surface water) or downgradient (groundwater) community water systems.

Option: Compliance with secondary MCLs must be achieved at the point of discharge. (This is more restrictive than baseline/existing conditions for surface water discharges, in which the Board has the authority to grant a mixing zone and adopt WDRs with dilution credit where there is assimilative capacity.)

f) Specify that compliance with WDRs based on secondary MCLs in Title 22 of the

California Code of Regulations Tables 64449-A and 64449-B shall be determined from an annual average of water samples.

g) Where waste discharges have the potential to affect source water quality in water supply

intakes or wells located downstream (surface water) or downgradient (groundwater) of a discharge, the Board may require the discharger, or dischargers collectively if in an approved management zone or as part of general order, to develop a detailed fate and transport analysis prior to issuing WDRs. The purpose of this analysis is to determine how the discharge affects the concentration of constituents identified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations Tables 64449-A and 64449-B at water supply intakes or water supply wells to ensure a safe drinking water supply for users.

Option: Additional requirement that if concentrations within a water body or groundwater basin reach 80 percent of the secondary MCL at the point of a water supply intake or well, a study will be conducted to evaluate actions to reduce the concentration of the constituent.

Option: Additional requirement that establishes a monitoring program for surface waters to characterize natural background and existing conditions with respect to secondary MCLs where available data is deemed to be insufficient.

4.1.3.7 Alternative Compliance Project Guidelines

When an individual or group of dischargers is unable to demonstrate that their discharge is not causing or contributing to nitrate degradation above the triggers identified in the SNMP, they have an opportunity to request either allocation of available assimilative capacity or an exception. In most cases, the request for the granting of assimilative capacity or an exception in these circumstances will trigger the need for submittal of a proposed Alternative Compliance

Commented [A21]: Important deletion and substitution for various reasons: (1) MUN waterbodies need to be protected for current and future use and (2) After drinking water source water is impacted, it can be very difficult and lengthy to reverse problems.

Commented [A22]: This is more stringent than current regulatory requirements and has not been requested by any parties or stakeholders that we are aware of. Why is this being included?



Project. The Alternative Compliance Project Guidelines define the components that must be included in an alternative compliance project in order to be considered and approved by the Central Valley Water Board. The guidelines specify a number of requirements for a proposed Alternative Compliance Project, including: 1) be consistent with the management goals of the SNMP; 2) prioritize assurance that drinking water that meets drinking water standards is available to all drinking water users within the zone of influence where there are significant nitrate water quality concerns in groundwater; 3) identify short and long-term projects or planning activities that will be implemented to make progress toward the SNMP water quality management goals; and 4) include a short- and long-term schedule for implementation of nitrate management activities.

4.1.3.8 Maximum Benefit Guidance

The SNMP includes factors to consider when making a finding that a proposed project meets the test that its approval and implementation would be “consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state” test, as stated in the state Antidegradation Policy, with examples provided. These examples address situations where lowering water quality is necessary to accommodate important social and economic growth in the region particularly where more stringent WDRs or prohibiting the discharge would result in widespread and substantial adverse socioeconomic impacts in the area. Such situations addressed in the guidance include increasing recycled water use, increasing groundwater recharge, dewatering discharges necessary to protect infrastructure deemed vital to public safety, and lowering water quality would produce significantly less adverse environmental impact than imposing more stringent effluent limitations or discharge prohibitions.

4.2 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no amendment to the Basin Plans to incorporate the changes recommended by the Central Valley SNMP policies, as described for the Proposed Project. The result would be regulation of waste discharges in the Central Valley according to the regulatory framework described in Section 3.2.4. Continued regulation of salt and nitrate discharges according to the existing regulatory framework has significant implications relative to permit limitations and time schedules that must be met to achieve water quality objectives for salt and nitrate.

Municipal and Industrial Wastewater. Municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers that currently have an interim effluent limitation for EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and/or sodium based on a variance issued under the Salinity Variance Program or exception issued under the Salinity Exception Program would not be able to have that variance/exception renewed after June 30, 2019 via the program. The Central Valley Water Board could still grant variances for EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and/or sodium after June 30, 2019; these variances would be issued consistent with the Central Valley Water Board’s Variance Policy and subject to USEPA approval before implementation in NPDES permits. Inclusion of performance-based effluent limitations in current NPDES permits or WDRs tied to participation in CV-SALTS that are higher than AGR- or MUN-based water quality objectives would no longer to be allowed. Rather, those NPDES

Commented [A23]: Why isn’t there discussion included of leaving the SMCL implementation for Table 64449‐A as currently applied?



permits and WDRs would include final water quality-based effluent limitations. Further, discharges to groundwater would be required to comply with EC and nitrate limitations based on applying EC and nitrate water quality objectives at the first encountered groundwater.

Irrigated Agriculture. Irrigated agriculture discharges to surface waters and groundwater would need to come into compliance with water quality standards for EC, TDS, and nitrate in receiving water within 10 years from triggering of surface water or groundwater quality management plan for these constituents. Further, discharges to groundwater would be required to comply with EC and nitrate limitations based on applying EC and nitrate water quality objectives at the first encountered groundwater.

Dairies. If the monitoring data indicate violation of a groundwater limitation requiring specifying that the discharge shall not cause or contribute to exceedance of water quality objectives, unreasonably affect beneficial uses, or cause a condition of pollution or nuisance, dairy dischargers are required to implement management practices/activities (BPTC for high quality waters or best efforts for waters that are not high quality) that will bring the facility into compliance with on a time schedule that is as short as practicable. All discharges must be in compliance with the groundwater limitation no later than 10 years after submittal date of a summary representative monitoring report, which must be submitted by July 1, 2020. Also, permittees would need to comply with EC and nitrate limitations based on water quality objectives in first encountered groundwater.

Storm Water. Regulation of storm water discharges would continue as described in Section 3.2.4, with compliance achieved through implementation of storm water management plans and implementation of BMPs.

5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The following sections provide the assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Project on the environmental resources of the Central Valley Region. The assessment utilizes the CEQA Appendix G Checklist as the basis for identifying environmental impacts.

5.1 AESTHETICS

ISSUES Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant With

Mitigation Incorporated

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?



ISSUES

Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact

No Impact

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

The discussion below for Aesthetics describes direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate

implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not directly result in adverse effects on any scenic vista within the region.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project, which could result in indirect effects to Aesthetics. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, design, and aesthetic aspects of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on aesthetics. Although it is not anticipated that any future discharger-specific project(s) that may indirectly result from the Proposed Project would adversely affect a scenic vista, because the specific locations of such projects are unknown, there is some potential for impacts to a scenic vista to occur. Consequently, due to the potential for an indirect impact to occur, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a potentially significant impact to a scenic vista.

b) For the reasons described above for “a,” and because future projects for salt and nitrate

management can be sited and constructed in a manner that would avoid substantial



damage to scenic resources within a state scenic highway, adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a less-than- significant impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.

c) For the reasons described above for “a,” adoption and implementation of the Proposed

Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a potentially significant impact on the existing visual character of the Central Valley region.

d) For the reasons described above for “a,” adoption and implementation of the Proposed

Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a potentially significant impact on day or nighttime views in the areas affected.

Because separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to the construction of specific projects for salt and nitrate management to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate any identified significant environmental impacts, and because parties other than the State of California may serve as the project proponents and thus be responsible for mitigation measures, should they be necessary, no mitigation measures are proposed here. Although not anticipated to be substantial, decisions makers should recognize the potential for such indirect effects to aesthetics from implementation of the Proposed Project, and that mitigation introduced for such impacts, should mitigation be identified under separate, future project-specific environmental review, may or may not mitigate aesthetic impacts to a less-than-significant level. Hence, although not anticipated, there is some potential for a significant and unavoidable impact to aesthetic resources.

5.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental impacts, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forestry resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion

The discussion below for Agricultural and Forestry Resources describes direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would directly convert agricultural land to another use. Further, there would be no change to the agricultural beneficial use (AGR) designation applied to surface water and groundwater within the Central Valley Region as a result of adopting the Proposed Project. The AGR Policy would assign AGR classes to different groundwater basins and subbasins within the Central Valley Region based on the existing ambient water quality in the upper zone of the basin or subbasin for the purposes of interpreting the narrative Chemical Constituents groundwater quality objective in the Basin Plans. The Central Valley Water Board would regulate to assure that the groundwater quality stays within its class and thus protect the users of that water. Existing agricultural uses, as affected by existing groundwater quality, would be unchanged by the Proposed Project, because the proposed classifications are based on existing groundwater quality and protecting AGR uses. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not directly result in adverse effects on farmland by conversion to a non-agricultural use.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate

Commented [A24]: Please provide explanation and analysis to demonstrate how water quality will improve for the SMCL constituents.



management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project, which could result in indirect effects to Agricultural and Forestry Resources. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on- farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects may result in the conversion of limited areas of farmland required for siting facilities or recharge areas to non-agricultural use. Such projects are not expected to be sited in forest lands. However, along with conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use would be improved conditions for farmland with implementation of the Proposed Project, in the long-term, for salinity in water and soils. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Although it is expected that future discharger-specific project(s) would not result in substantial conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use, some such conversion due to these projects could occur, particularly on a local scale. Consequently, due to the potential for an indirect impact to occur, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a potentially significant impact to conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

Because separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to the construction of specific projects for salt and nitrate management to identify project- specific environmental impacts and to incorporate measures to avoid, mitigate, or reduce any identified significant environmental impacts, and because parties other than the State of California may serve as the project proponents and thus be responsible for mitigation measures, should they be necessary, no mitigation measures are proposed here. Although not anticipated to be substantial, decisions makers should recognize the potential for such indirect effects to agricultural lands from implementation of the Proposed Project, and that mitigation introduced for such impacts, should mitigation be identified under separate, future project-specific environmental review, may or may not mitigate the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Hence, although not anticipated, there is some potential for a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural lands due to conversion of farm land to non-agricultural use in local areas.

b) The Proposed Project would have no impact on existing agricultural use zoning of a

Williamson Act contract.

c) The Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on existing zoning of forest land or timberland.



d) The Proposed Project would not directly or indirectly result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use because the projects for salt and nitrate management that may be implemented in the future are expected to be sited primarily in agricultural areas and are not expected to be sited in forested areas. Any projects that are sited in areas that would result in conversion of forest land to non-forest use would be expected to affect a negligible percentage of the region’s forest lands. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use.

e) As stated under “c” and “d” above, the Proposed Project is not expected to directly or

indirectly affect forest lands. As described above for “a,” there would be no change to the relevant agricultural beneficial use (AGR) designation of any water bodies within the Central Valley Region and assignment of AGR classes under the AGR policy would be based on existing groundwater quality. In addition, the Proposed Project would have no impact on existing zoning of forest land or timberland, nor would the actions under the Proposed Project result in the substantial loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. There would be period of time (approximately 10 to 20 years) between when the Proposed Project is adopted by the Central Valley Water Board and projects are implemented to manage salt loading in the Central Valley during which salts would continue to accumulate in underlying groundwater (see assessment in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality) and, thus, in overlying soils. The degree to which salts would accumulate in Central Valley would vary by region and depend on source water quality and water application timing and rates. The continued salt accumulation in the Central Valley during this period is not expected to result in a substantial conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, but reduced crop yields and shifts to salt tolerant crops within certain localized areas of the valley is a potential outcome of continued salt accumulation. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on farmland and forest land related to changes in the existing environment.

5.3 AIR QUALITY


Impact




Impact

No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the Project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

The discussion below for Air Quality describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a,e) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate

implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would have no direct adverse effects on air quality. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan because such projects would not create substantial, long-term increases in air quality pollutants. Likewise, these projects would not result in substantial, long-term air quality degradation that would produce objectionable odors.



Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on applicable air quality plans or objectionable odors.

b,c,d) As described above under “a,” the Proposed Project would not directly result in

adverse effect to air quality. Also, as described above, implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on air quality. Nevertheless, the use of heavy machinery in the construction of these projects could potentially, on a short-term basis, contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, increase a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. However, any such effects, should they occur, would be temporary in nature during construction. The projects constructed would not produce air quality pollutants of concern on a long-term operational basis. Moreover, standard construction best management practices would be implemented by project proponents to minimize adverse construction-related effects on air quality. Hence, the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in substantial, long-term adverse effects to air quality or sensitive receptors.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on air quality and sensitive receptors.

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly

or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion

The discussion below for Biological Resources describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would change the landscape. As such, the Proposed Project would have no direct adverse effects on terrestrial biological resources.

The Proposed Project would make no changes to biological resource-related beneficial uses (e.g., WARM, COLD, WILD, BIOL, RARE, MIGR, SPWN) or associated water quality objectives, or implementation programs related to these beneficial uses or objectives. The potential changes to surface water quality, which can affect aquatic life beneficial uses, are addressed below in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The constituents that are addressed by the Proposed Project include salts (i.e., TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate), nitrate, and constituents with secondary MCLs. Some of these constituents (e.g., chloride, copper, silver, zinc) also have aquatic life criteria, the regulation of which would be unchanged by the Proposed Project. Further, as described in the water quality assessment, no substantial degradation for these aquatic life constituents would occur with the Proposed Project. Thus, the Proposed Project would not contribute to adverse chemical conditions to aquatic life. Also, as stated above, the



Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new physical facilities by the Central Valley Water Board and thus would not adversely modify aquatic habitats. Based on these findings, the Proposed Project would not implement actions that would directly result in substantial adverse effects to aquatic or terrestrial biological resources, including on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project, which could result in indirect effects on biological resources. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Depending on the community water system source water supply, there could be an effect on instream flows within a Central Valley Region water body or water bodies. Instream flow patterns could also be altered as a result of groundwater recharge basins that rely on diversion of flows from surface waters (e.g., diversion of Kings River flood waters for on-farm recharge). Further, the discharge of brine into San Francisco Bay has the potential to affect aquatic life in the vicinity of the discharge outfall. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design aspects of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on biological resources. Although it is not anticipated that any future discharger-specific project(s) that may indirectly result from the Proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse effect to biological resources, there is some potential for indirect impacts to biological resources to occur.

Due to the potential for an indirect impact to occur, and the sensitive nature of special status species populations and their habitats, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a potentially significant impact to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species.

Because separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to the construction of specific projects for salt and nitrate management to identify project- specific environmental impacts and to incorporate measures to avoid, mitigate, or reduce any identified significant environmental impacts, and because parties other than the State of California may serve as the project proponents and thus be responsible for mitigation measures, should they be necessary, no mitigation measures are proposed here. Although not anticipated to be substantial, decisions makers should recognize the potential for such indirect effects to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species from implementation of the Proposed Project. Should future projects include use of federal funds, require a Clean Water Act 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of



Engineers or in another way involve a federal agency, then federal agency consultation under Section 7 of the federal endangered species act (ESA) would be required prior to implementation of projects. This ESA consultation would further ensure that substantial adverse effects to ESA-listed species would not result from project implementation. It should be noted that mitigation or avoidance measures introduced for potential impacts, should such measures be identified under separate, future project-specific environmental review, may or may not mitigate the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Hence, although not anticipated, there is a small potential for a significant and unavoidable impact to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species due to terrestrial or aquatic habitat modifications.

b) As described above for “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve construction

of new buildings, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would remove or adversely modify riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not directly result in substantial adverse effects on riparian habitats or other natural biological communities.

As described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities at specific sites. However, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, and construction best management practices are expected to minimize any potential adverse effects to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities from project construction and long-term operation.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a less-than-significant impact to any riparian habitat and other sensitive natural biological communities.

c) As described above for “a,b” the Proposed Project does not directly involve construction

of new buildings, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. The Proposed Project would not result in the direct removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of wetlands. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not directly result in substantial adverse effects on federally protected wetlands.

As described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on federally protected wetlands at specific sites. Nevertheless, construction and operation of specific projects



for salt and nitrate management are not expected to result in removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of marsh, vernal pool, coastal, or other wetland habitats because the majority of such projects are expected to be constructed in agricultural and urban areas of the Central Valley. Construction of a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine from desalter facilities could potentially be along a route that would require some level of removal, filling, or hydrological interruption of marsh, wetland, or vernal pool habitat. However, project proponents would be required to obtain a Clean Water Act 404 permit and mitigate for any impacts to or loss of federally protected wetlands.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a less-than-significant impact to any federally protected wetlands.

d) As described above for “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve construction of

new buildings, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly modify terrestrial or aquatic habitats and thus would not directly result in substantial adverse effects on biological resources or their habitats. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not directly interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

As described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on fish and wildlife movement and use of native nursery sites. However, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, and construction best management practices are expected to minimize any potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife movement and use of nursery sites. Moreover, most projects are anticipated to be constructed in agricultural and urban areas and are also expected to have minimal effects on surface water quality and habitat.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board is considered to have a less-than-significant impact to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and use of native wildlife nursery sites.

e,f) As described above for “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve construction

of new buildings, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly modify terrestrial or aquatic habitats and thus would not directly result in substantial adverse effects on biological resources or their habitats. The Proposed Project would make no changes to biological resource-related beneficial



uses (e.g., WARM, COLD, WILD, BIOL, RARE, MIGR, SPWN) or associated water quality objectives, or implementation programs related to these beneficial uses or objectives. Hence, the Proposed Project would not directly conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community Conservation Plan; or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

As described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Construction and operation of such projects would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan; or any other habitat conservation plan. This is primarily due to the size, nature, and anticipated siting of these projects (primarily in agricultural and urban areas) and the fact that each project would be required to undergo separate, project-specific environmental review and permitting before it can be constructed and operated. Project refinement, development of impact avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation, where warranted, would prevent potential effects to biological resources from reaching levels that would conflict with provisions of adopted plans.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a less-than-significant impact to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and to local, regional, or state Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the Project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?



Discussion

a,b) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not change or affect historical or archaeological resources.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project, which could result in indirect effects to cultural resources. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects may result in ground excavations for facility construction or placement of facilities or pipelines in areas of historical or archaeological significance. Because separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts, these projects themselves are not expected to change or adversely affect historical or archaeological resources. In fact, the proponents of future salt and nitrate management projects would be expected to site projects and conduct construction monitoring in a manner that would avoid adverse effects to historical or archaeological resources.

Therefore, adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have no impact on the significance of a historical or archaeological resource.

c,d) As stated above under “a,b,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly result in ground excavations for facility construction that could interact with a paleontological resource, a site of unique geological feature, or disturb any human remains. Thus, the Proposed Project would not directly result in adverse effects to paleontological resources or unique geologic sites, or human remains.

As also described above under “a,b,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was



available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on paleontological resources and unique geological sites. However, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, and construction best management practices and construction monitoring are expected to occur when these projects are constructed, which would both avoid and minimize the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, a unique geological feature, or disturb human remains. Any interaction with unique geologic sites and paleontological resources would be handled in a manner that would not result in the destruction of these resources.

Therefore, adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would result in a less-than-significant impact to paleontological resources and unique geologic sites.

5.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY


Impact




Impact

No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to potential

substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion

The discussion below for Geology, Soils, and Seismicity describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, houses, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board and thus does not directly locate, re-locate, or concentrate people in areas different from where people occur under existing conditions. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly expose people or structures to earthquake fault lines, seismic ground shaking, ground liquefaction, or landslides.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects may result in ground excavations for facility construction or placement of facilities or pipelines in areas that may be in the vicinity of a fault or subject to future strong seismic shaking, or soils of unknown quality at this time. Insufficient information pertaining to the siting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on the expose people or structures to earthquake fault lines, seismic ground shaking, ground liquefaction, or landslides. Nevertheless, construction and operation of specific projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, these projects are expected to be sited and constructed in a manner that would avoid or minimize exposure of people and property to loss, injury, or death as a result of fault lines, seismic ground shaking, ground liquefaction, or landslides.



Therefore, approval and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a less-than-significant impact on the exposure of people or structures to adverse effects involving fault lines, seismic-related ground shaking and failure, and landslides.

b) As discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly result in ground excavations for facility construction that could result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Thus, the Proposed Project would not directly result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

As also described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on soils. Construction and operation of these projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, and construction best management practices are expected to occur when these projects are constructed, which would both avoid and minimize the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil at construction sites. Through these actions, soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be minimized and is not expected to occur at levels of concern.

Therefore, adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would result in a less-than-significant impact to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil.

c,d) For the reasons described above for “a,b,” the Proposed Project would have no impact

on the potential for landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse to occur; or for facilities to be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property.

e) For the reasons described above for “a,b,” the Proposed Project would not directly result

in the placement of structures that would generate wastewater requiring disposal to land, nor would the Proposed Project affect soils in a manner that would cause soils to be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Consequently, the Proposed Project would have no impact on soils or their ability to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.



5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS


Impact




Impact

No Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either

directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion

The discussion below for Greenhouse Gas Emissions describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a,b) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate

implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. Nitrate in soil can be converted to nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide is a bi-product of the conversion of ammonia to nitrate and ultimately to nitrogen gas (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009). Nitrogen fertilization practices contribute significantly to nitrous oxide production; nitrous oxide emissions increase dramatically when fertilization exceeds crop usage (University of California 2016).

The existing practices that contribute to existing nitrate concentrations in soils, such as application of fertilizers on agricultural lands and wastewater discharge quality, would be expected to remain similar to existing conditions with the Proposed Project. Wastewater discharge quality is a function of the treatment processes in place, which will continue to be utilized into the future. The Proposed Project does not specifically authorize expanded wastewater treatment plant discharges. Regarding agriculture, no region-wide changes in agricultural production are expected, though there may be near-term localized shifts to salt tolerant crops due to interim salt accumulations in soils before salt management projects needed under the Proposed Project are implemented (see Section 5.2, Agricultural and Forestry Resources). Further, WDRs issued through the Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program require the preparation and implementation of farm-specific nitrogen management plans to optimize application of nitrogen for crop production. Thus fertilizer application rates in the future would be expected to be no greater than under existing conditions. Because the rate at which nitrate is applied to soils with the Proposed Project is expected to be no greater than existing conditions, the generation of nitrous oxide with the Proposed Project is expected to be no greater than existing conditions.



Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on- farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. These projects could indirectly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation of the projects/facilities. Separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts. The amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that could potentially occur from constructing and operating these projects is not expected to be substantial because construction would be temporary and the projects themselves are not projects that would produce substantial greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would have a less-than-significant impact on generation of greenhouse gas emissions and no impact in regard to conflicts with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to greenhouse gas emissions.

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


Impact




Impact

No Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion

The discussion below for Hazards and Hazardous Materials describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a) The proposed surface water and groundwater regulatory policies that constitute the Proposed Project do not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board, nor does the project directly involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, the Proposed Project would have no direct effect on hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. The construction and operation of these projects could involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials such as petroleum fuels, concrete, and chemicals uses in treatment of water supplies at water treatment plants. These types of materials are not highly hazardous when used and transported properly. Separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and



operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, hazards associated with the construction and operation of salt and nitrate management projects are expected to be low.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would result in a less-than-significant impact to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

b,c) As discussed above for “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the transport,

use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Hence, the Proposed Project would have no direct effect on the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; release of hazardous materials into the environment; or exposure of a school to hazardous materials or emissions.

As also discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project would indirectly result in the need to construct and operate projects across the Central Valley for salt and nitrate management. However, as concluded above under “a,” hazards associated with the construction and operation of salt and nitrate management projects are expected to be low, and the risk to the public or the environment would be primarily from the transport of hazardous materials to the project site. Insufficient information pertaining to the siting of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of the transport and use of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school location. However, these projects would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting where the issue of transporting or using hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school location would be addressed. Through these environmental review processes, proper siting of projects (including the consideration of school locations), implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, and construction and transport best management practices are expected to occur when these projects are constructed and operated, which would both avoid and minimize the potential for hazards to the public, including schools, or the environment from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Based on these findings, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding hazards to the public, including schools, or the environment from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

d) For the reasons described above for “a,b,c,” the Proposed Project would have no direct

effect on the exposure of the public or the environment to a significant hazard associated with hazardous materials located on a site. Any indirect effect of the Proposed Project on the exposure of the public or the environment to a significant hazard associated with hazardous materials located on a site, through the construction of projects by dischargers,



would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, it is not expected that a project for the management of salt or nitrate would be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would itself create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Consequently, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the exposure of the public or the environment to a significant hazard associated with hazardous materials located on a site.

e,f) For the reasons described for “a,b,c,” the Proposed Project would have no direct effect on

the exposure of people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip to a safety hazard. Any indirect effect of the Proposed Project on the exposure of people to a safety hazard through the construction and operation of projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, impact avoidance and mitigation measures would be introduced to projects, if needed to avoid substantial safety hazards to people. Moreover, the types of projects that may be constructed and operated for salt and nitrate management would not be of the nature that would expose people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip to a safety hazard. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the exposure of people residing or working within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip to a safety hazard.

g) For the reasons described for “a,b,c,d,” the Proposed Project would have no impact on an

adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

h) For the reasons described for “a,b,c,d,” the Proposed Project would have no direct effect on the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

As discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the construction and operation of projects for salt and nitrate management. The construction and operation of these projects could involve use of hazardous materials such as petroleum fuels, concrete, and chemicals uses in treatment of water supplies at water treatment plants. These types of materials would not cause or contribute to wildland fires when used and transported properly. Separate project-specific environmental review and permitting would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts related to exposure of people or structures to wildland fires. This would involve proper siting of facilities, use of fire breaks around facilities, and proper storage and transport of flammable materials.

Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project by the Central Valley Water Board would result in a less-than-significant impact to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.



5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY


Impact




Impact

No Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that results in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Commented [A25]: The evaluation is insufficient to support this conclusion.



Discussion

The discussion below describes the direct and indirect impacts to Hydrology that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a) As a regulatory action, the Proposed Project itself would not cause violation of water

quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Rather, the Proposed Project is an action of the Central Valley Water Board to establish new and revised policies for the regulation of point source discharges to surface waters and groundwater within the Central Valley Region, including policies for determining compliance with surface water and groundwater quality objectives, and for granting variances and exceptions from meeting surface water and groundwater quality objectives. These policies would allow temporary, modified application of water quality standards for individual dischargers so that discharges can be permitted that would otherwise be determined out of compliance with WDRs or would need to be prohibited. These policies would be implemented through modifications to discharger NPDES permits and WDRs. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Further, the Proposed Project does not permit POTWs additional discharge capacity that would induce growth nor directly require changes to agricultural operations.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. The construction and operation of specific projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, these projects are expected to be sited, constructed, and operated in a manner that would not cause violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

b) The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of housing or other

facilities that would rely on extraction of groundwater supplies, or would expand impervious area or otherwise cause interference of groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no direct effect on groundwater supplies.

As discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project is anticipated to indirectly result in the construction and operation of specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Of the

Commented [A26]: Not true if allow dischargers to use only dissolved metals, the total would likely be above the water quality objectives.

Commented [A27]: If compliance is based on dissolved metals, total metals levels may exceed water quality standards, which is an impact to water agencies.

Commented [A28]: Focus on salt and nitrate. Insufficient evaluation of potential impacts to MUN users.



projects described above under “a” that the Proposed Project may indirectly result in, only new community water systems may reduce local groundwater supplies by pumping and treating local groundwater supplies to levels where it could be used for municipal supply where it was not being used under existing conditions due to high levels of salts and/or nitrate. Nevertheless, any such new use of groundwater by communities due the Proposed Project would be expected to be done on a sustainable basis, and not result in adverse levels of groundwater depletion over time. The other types of salt and nitrate management projects that may indirectly result from the Proposed Project would either not affect groundwater supplies or would increase groundwater supplies.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on groundwater supplies.

c,d,e) As discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly result in land modifications that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, the Proposed Project have no direct effect on the drainage pattern of a site or area, the generation of additional storm water runoff, or the capacity of existing or planned storm system.

As also described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Depending on the community water system source water supply, there could be an effect on instream flows within a Central Valley Region water body or water bodies. Instream flow patterns could also be altered as a result of groundwater recharge basins that rely on diversion of flows from surface waters (e.g., diversion of Kings River flood waters for on-farm recharge). These projects could alter the hydrology of surface water and groundwater bodies. Construction of new facilities also could result in the drainage pattern of a site being altered. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on existing drainage pattern and runoff. Nevertheless, construction and operation of these projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, mitigation measures, and construction best management practices are expected to occur when these projects are constructed, which would both avoid and minimize the potential for adverse changes to site hydrology, drainage and runoff. Through these required processes, changes to site drainage patterns and runoff would be minimized and designed to avoid substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, flooding on- or off-site, exceedance of existing stormwater system capacity, or substantially increase polluted runoff.



Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact to site or area drainage patterns, runoff volume and pollutant load, or existing or planned storm water drainage systems capacity.

g,h,i,j) As discussed above under “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly result in construction of housing or structures. Consequently, the Proposed Project would have no effect on the placement of housing or structures in a 100-year flood hazard area; the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding; or on the inundation of areas by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

As also described above under “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Insufficient information pertaining to the siting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of or risks to such projects from flooding or inundation of areas by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Nevertheless, construction and operation of these projects for salt and nitrate management would undergo separate project-specific environmental review and permitting. Through these processes, proper siting of projects, implementation of appropriate impact avoidance measures, mitigation measures, and construction best management practices are expected to occur when these projects are constructed, which would both avoid and minimize the potential for exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding or on the inundation of areas by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Although some risk minimal would exist if structures or portions of structures associated with the Proposed Project are built within a 100-year flood hazard area or near the coast (e.g., brine line to San Francisco Bay), this risk is expected to be minimal and to be addressed consistent with current best engineering practices when the projects are designed, reviewed, permitted, and constructed.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the placement of housing in a 100-year flood hazard area, and a less-than-significant impact to the placement of structures within a 100-year flood area, exposure of people or structures to flooding or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.

The remaining discussion below addresses the potential for the Proposed Project to otherwise substantially degrade water quality (question “f” in the Checklist). Each strategy, policy, and guidance document that comprises the Proposed Project is addressed separately. The Proposed Project strategy, policy, or guidance (or proposed options) would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., would substantially degrade water quality) if it would cause:

long-term degradation of one or more water quality constituent(s) or parameter(s) in one or more surface water body or groundwater basin or sub-basin of the Central Valley



Region that would result in a substantially increased likelihood for adverse effects to one or more beneficial use(s) of the water body or groundwater basin/sub-basin; or

surface water or groundwater that currently exceeds applicable salinity, nitrate, or secondary MCL constituent objectives/criteria to be further degraded, on a long-term average basis.

In the event that water quality degradation is anticipated to occur due to the Proposed Project, but that the magnitude, duration, and/or geographic extent of the anticipated Project-caused degradation is not expected to adversely affect beneficial uses and would not further degrade water quality that presently exceed applicable salinity, nitrate, or secondary MCL constituent objectives/criteria, then such degradation will not be determined to “substantially degrade water quality” and thus will be determined to result in a less-than-significant impact to water quality.

It should be noted that the Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Implementation of the Proposed Project may lead to the construction of specific projects on the part of dischargers to address water quality degradation (e.g., Alternative Compliance Projects). These projects would undergo separate environmental review to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts. Thus, the discussion below addresses only the potential for water quality degradation from implementation of the Proposed Project on discharges to surface waters and groundwaters in the Central Valley Region.

Default Groundwater Management Areas

Currently, the TLB Basin Plan identifies groundwater basins and subbasins in Table II-2 that, for the most part, match those shown in the most recent DWR Bulletin 118 (California Department of Water Resources 2003). However, when DWR Bulletin 118 was last updated, several subbasins were deleted. The Proposed Project would amend the TLB Basin Plan so that the list of groundwater basins/subbasins in Table II-2 is consistent with the delineation of groundwater basins/subbasins in the most current DWR Bulletin 118. The Proposed Project would also amend the SRSJB Basin Plan to include a new table in Basin Plan Chapter II (Existing and Potential Beneficial Uses) to list the groundwater basins/subbasins, consistent with DWR Bulletin 118. These amendments to the Basin Plan do not involve a change in water quality objectives, beneficial use designation, or implementation of water quality objectives. Rather, they provide a framework for future groundwater management. Therefore, these proposed amendments would have no impact on water quality degradation.

Groundwater Management Zone Policy

The Groundwater Management Zone Policy recommends the Basin Plans be amended to include criteria for establishment and regulation of management zones for the purposes of groundwater quality management and control of nitrate. As proposed, management zones could be used as a discrete regulatory compliance unit. The formation of a management zone, itself, would not result in water quality degradation, as this action is the establishment of a management structure



to address degradation through the other SNMP strategies and policies. Therefore, the proposal to allow the formation of groundwater management zones for nitrate would have no impact on water quality degradation. The potential for substantial water quality degradation associated with implementing the other SNMP strategies through a management zone (e.g., Nitrate Permitting Strategy, Exceptions Policy) is addressed in subsequent sections.

Options: The policy options include: a) not allowing management zones to be used for compliance; b) adding a goal to the management zone implementation plan to achieve balance and restore aquifer, where feasible, within 50 years; c) allow constituents other than nitrate to be addressed through management zone; d) have timelines for formation of management zones be at the discretion of the Central Valley Water Board; and e) have determinations of assimilative capacity be based on first encountered groundwater (same as existing conditions). These options address the framework of management zones and would have no impact on water quality degradation. Regarding allowance of management zone for constituents beyond nitrate, the effect on water quality degradation for those additional constituents would depend on implementation policies for those constituents are integrated with the management zone framework and cannot be addressed within this assessment.

Nitrate Permitting Strategy

The Nitrate Permitting Strategy defines an approach to allocating assimilative capacity for nitrate in groundwater to individual point source dischargers (called Path A) and management zones (called Path B). Each permitting pathway is addressed below.

Path A (Individual Discharger)

Under Path A, assimilative capacity is addressed through evaluation of shallow groundwater, which would minimize degradation potential in the upper zone and production zone. This pathway categorizes each discharge according to whether the discharge concentration of nitrate is less than the water quality objective or greater than the objective, and percentage of assimilative capacity available (i.e., the difference between the groundwater nitrate concentration and the objective). The five categories are addressed below.

Categories 1 and 2: Discharges in the “no degradation” and “de minimus” categories would not result in substantial degradation for nitrate, by definition of the categories.

Category 3: Dischargers that would not cause the upper zone groundwater nitrate concentrations to exceed 75 percent of the water quality objective (i.e., at or below 7.5 mg/L-N) over a 20-year planning horizon or upper zone groundwater concentrations to increase by 0.1 mg/L-N per year for a 5-year period (i.e., 0.5 mg/L-N in total) could contribute to some water quality degradation of nitrate, but the amount of degradation would be limited, resulting nitrate concentrations would remain below the applicable water quality objective of 10 mg/L-N, and beneficial uses would be protected.



Category 4: In this category upper zone groundwater nitrate could degrade above 75 percent of the water quality objective (i.e., above 7.5 mg/L-N) over a 20-year planning horizon. Alternatively, upper zone groundwater nitrate could degrade at a rate greater than 0.1 mg/L-N per year where groundwater concentrations are at or above 50 percent of the water quality objective (i.e., at or above 5 mg/L-N). For this category, the discharger would need to submit an Alternative Compliance Project proposal to the Central Valley Water Board and findings would need to be made in WDRs that the discharge would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses, and that degradation is consistent with the state Antidegradation Policy.

Category 5: For this category, discharges that have nitrate concentrations above the 10 mg/L-N where upper zone groundwater nitrate already is greater than 10 mg/L-N could contribute to additional degradation if the discharge concentrations are greater than the groundwater. Such degradation would be permitted through obtaining an exception to meeting the water quality objective (the Exceptions Policy is addressed below).

Thus, while Category 3 and 4 dischargers would be permitted to further degrade nitrate conditions, the degradation would be limited to protect beneficial uses. Permitting discharges that fall into Category 5 could contribute to substantial degradation of groundwater quality for nitrate in basins/subbasins where nitrate levels are already above the applicable objective, thereby making adverse nitrate conditions worse, which would adversely affect the beneficial uses of groundwater.

The Nitrate Permitting Strategy requires dischargers in Category 5 to develop and implement an Alternative Compliance Project. An Alternative Compliance Project may include both interim actions (e.g., bottled water) in the short-term, permanent solutions (such as well-head treatment or alternative drinking water supplies) in the intermediate term, and efforts to re-attain the water quality objective (where feasible and practicable) over the long-term. Guidelines specific to developing Alternative Compliance Projects are set forth in the Central Valley SNMP.

Path B (Management Zones)

Path B would be followed for a management zone. Assimilative capacity would be granted based on the production zone. The management zone participants would be required to submit an Early Action Plan, which would include a schedule of implementation to address immediate drinking water needs where groundwater used for drinking water supplies exceeds the nitrate objective. Also, the management zone participants would submit a Final Management Zone Proposal that would identify the approach for proposed regulatory compliance (e.g., use of assimilative capacity, exception to meeting nitrate objective) and an Implementation Plan, which is to specify short- and long-term projects or planning activities that will be implemented to make progress toward attaining the management goals of the SNMP.

During the period in which the management zone is formed and the required proposals and plans are prepared and submitted, and the plans are implemented, there could be degradation of nitrate relative to existing conditions. If this degradation occurs in areas where groundwater nitrate is



near or already above the 10 mg/L-N objective, this degradation would have the potential to adversely affect the MUN beneficial use. The duration of the degraded nitrate conditions would depend on the sources and amount of nitrate loading to the affected aquifer, and type of short- and long-term project(s) implemented to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations, but is estimated to be multiple years, if not decades in some areas of substantial impairment.

Upon full implementation of Nitrate Permitting Strategy, including completion of long-term projects by individual dischargers (Path A) and management zones (Path B) to achieve balanced nitrate loading and restoration of the aquifer, where reasonable and feasible (Goals 2 and 3 of the SNMP) the concentrations nitrate in the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be at similar levels or be improved, relative to existing conditions. Through implementation of the Nitrate Permitting Strategy, dischargers in the Central Valley Region would have implemented treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of nitrate to groundwaters. There may be localized areas within the region where nitrate may still be above levels necessary for protection of MUN uses and stabilized at levels similar to those under existing conditions. Finally, there may be localized areas within the region where groundwater nitrate degradation continues to occur, and remediation back to existing conditions is not feasible. However, on a basin/subbasin volume-weighted average basis, which is the proposed management structure for controlling and restoring nitrate, an improvement in groundwater quality is expected from implementing the Nitrate Permitting Strategy, relative to existing conditions.

Consequently, based on the above discussion, the Nitrate Permitting Strategy could result in potentially significant impacts to water quality degradation in regard to nitrate in the coming years and potentially decades, but would be expected to ultimately improve nitrate concentrations within the Central Valley Region, relative to existing conditions, upon the full implementation of the strategy such that the impact with regard to water quality degradation would be less than significant.

Option: The proposed option to the Nitrate Permitting Strategy provides alternative structure, information requirements, and timelines to the proposed strategy. However, as with the proposed strategy, there still could be potentially significant impacts to water quality via substantial degradation in regard to nitrate for a period of time (years to decades) until projects are ultimately implemented that achieve nitrate loading balance and improved (reduced) nitrate concentrations, relative to existing conditions. Upon the full implementation of the strategy, water quality degradation with regard to nitrate would be less than significant.

Salinity Management Strategy

The Salinity Management Strategy involves a three phase approach of study and implementation to control salt accumulation in the Central Valley. Phase I consists of developing a Prioritization and Optimization Study to further define the conceptual design of SSALTS into a feasibility study, which is expected to take 10 years. Phase II would involve environmental permitting, funding, and engineering and design. Phase III would involve actual construction of projects.



While the Phase I, Prioritization and Optimization Study, is being implemented, the Salinity Management Strategy recommends that the Basin Plans be amended to include an interim salinity permitting approach for discharges of salinity. This approach would allow the Central Valley Water Board to manage degradation while the long-term salinity efforts are being developed, funded, and implemented. In general, the resolutions/orders would require dischargers to continue current reasonable, feasible and practicable efforts to implement salinity management practices and/or source control efforts, including implementation of any pollution prevention plans, watershed plans, and/or salt reduction plans. Monitoring for salinity in surface water and groundwater would also continue as part of applicable monitoring programs, or through regional monitoring programs as appropriate.

Salts (i.e., TDS, EC, chloride, sulfate, and sodium) are extremely difficult to control in discharges, hence the ongoing work by CV-SALTS and the development of the Central Valley SNMP. Most wastewater, agricultural, and storm water discharges do not have processes in place to remove TDS, EC, chloride, sulfate, and sodium, though entities with wastewater treatment plants have made efforts to control salt loading to their facilities through limiting chemical usage (e.g., using ultraviolet disinfection rather than chlorine) or through service area controls (e.g., alternative municipal water supplies having lower salinity, water softener control/removal ordinances). Storm water and agricultural BMPs are typically concerned with reducing particulates in discharges, not salts. Requiring dischargers to continue reasonable, feasible and practicable efforts to implement current salinity management practices and/or source control efforts during the Phase I (Prioritization and Optimization Study; approximately ten years), Phase II (permtting, engineering, design; approximately ten years), and into Phase III (construction; timeframe to be determined) would essentially result in no change in discharge quality for these parameters, relative to existing conditions.

The continuation of discharges from wastewater, storm water, and agriculture to surface waters in the Central Valley Region at current levels is not anticipated to result in substantial degradation for salinity constituents relative to existing conditions. As described above, the quality of discharges would be regulated through modifications to WDRs to maintain existing salinity levels to the extent reasonable, feasible, and practicable. Thus, the impact to surface water quality degradation as result of implementation of Phase I of the Salinity Management Strategy would be less than significant.

For groundwater, water quality degradation with regard to salinity constituent is not anticipated in relation to storm water discharges, as storm water is a result of precipitation, which is generally not a high salinity source. Wastewater and agricultural discharges have the potential to have high salinity levels relative to receiving waters. In groundwater basins or portions of basins where levels of salinity constituents are near or above applicable objectives and the discharge levels are above groundwater levels, there is the potential for water quality degradation to occur that results in groundwater concentrations being increased above applicable objectives, or results in groundwater quality that is already exceeding objectives being further degraded. Over the approximate twenty-year period that would comprise Phases I and II of the Salinity Management Strategy, plus the additional time in Phase III for construction, this degradation could be substantial in some areas of the Central Valley and thus, for the degradation scenarios described



above, could result in an adverse affect to MUN and AGR uses. This is considered a potentially significant impact with regard to water quality degradation in groundwater.

Exceptions Policy

The current Salinity Exception Program applies to EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and sodium, and sunsets on June 30, 2019. The Exceptions Policy proposes to expand the program to include nitrate and eliminate the sunset date. The Exceptions Policy also identifies proposed limits regarding terms and renewal of exceptions. By definition, an exception would be applied in situations where the discharge concentration of a salinity parameter or nitrate exceeds the applicable groundwater quality objective and there is no assimilative capacity. In cases where the discharge concentration also exceeds the groundwater quality concentration, degradation would occur. Because the exception allows discharges and groundwater to exceed water quality objectives for salt and nitrate, there would be the potential to adversely affect MUN and/or AGR beneficial uses in some areas of the Central Valley. This is considered a potentially significant impact during the period in which it occurs.

To control the continued degradation of water quality for salts and nitrate where an exception has been granted, the dischargers must make reasonable “best efforts” to comply with applicable WDRs. Further, dischargers will be required to periodically reassess BMPs and survey available treatment technologies to determine if feasible, practicable, and reasonable compliance options have become available. Also, dischargers must identify how the exception facilitates the larger long-term strategy designed to ultimately attain water quality objectives.

To further address degradation of nitrate, dischargers would be required to assure availability of an adequate supply of safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water as a condition of obtaining the exception for nitrate. The assurance must include a credible and realistic framework to construct/install a permanent long-term solution and an immediate commitment to make available temporary replacement water in the interim.

An exception would only be granted to a discharger or management zone to facilitate the long- term attainment of water quality standards or provide time needed to revise an inappropriate water quality standard. Thus, although implementation of the Exceptions Policy would allow groundwater quality degradation to occur for a period of time, this policy would be applied in conjunction with other actions designed to ultimately address degraded water quality conditions in groundwater (e.g., in conjunction with the Nitrate Permitting Strategy or Salinity Management Strategy) such that there would be no adverse effects to beneficial uses in the future. Consequently, based on the above discussion, the Exceptions Policy could result in potentially significant impacts to water quality degradation in regard to salts and nitrate in the coming years and potentially decades, but as a regulatory tool that would be used in conjunction with other SNMP actions (e.g., Salinity and nitrate management strategies and associated actions), would be expected to ultimately improve salt and nitrate concentrations, relative to existing conditions such that the impact with regard to water quality degradation would be less than significant.



Options: Additional options include incorporating boron into the Exceptions Policy. The above described impacts would apply to boron (e.g., in the San Joaquin River), or any other constituent incorporated into the policy that currently exceeds objectives/criteria and would allow discharges that are above receiving water concentrations. Additional options address conditions under which an exception would be granted, incorporation of performance measures, and restricting use of exceptions to a permit-by-permit basis. While these options incorporate additional conditions and restriction on the use of exceptions, there would still be the potential for substantial adverse water quality degradation for the term of the exception. Thus, the impact determinations identified above also would apply with the options.

AGR Policy

The AGR Policy proposes to amend the Basin Plans to assign AGR classes to groundwater basins or subbasins based on existing TDS concentrations and EC levels for purposes of interpreting the narrative Chemical Constituents objective for groundwater. Once a groundwater basin or subbasin is given an AGR classification, TDS concentrations (and EC levels) within the basin/subbasin would be managed within the range established for that class. The resulting management of salinity levels within a particular basin/subbasin would be within the ranges specified. The assignment of a groundwater basin or subbasin to an AGR class is based on the existing volume-weighted average of TDS concentrations in the production zone.

With the proposed management of salinity according to AGR classification, there is potential for groundwater quality degradation. For a basin assigned AGR Class 1, groundwater EC/TDS levels would be managed to EC < 1,000 µS/cm and TDS < 600 mg/L, on a volume-weighted basis. Similarly, for a basin assigned AGR Class 2, EC/TDS levels would be managed to allow EC in the range of 1,000–3,000 µS/cm and TDS of 600–2,000 mg/L. And for a basin assigned AGR Class 3, EC/TDS levels would be managed to allow EC of 3,000–7,500 µS/cm and TDS 2,000–5,000 mg/L. In basins where the volume-weighted EC/TDS levels are below these upper values, some degradation would be allowed to occur relative to existing conditions, basin-wide. There may be areas within a basin that have a higher or lower EC/TDS in the production zone as compared to the range of the AGR class assigned to that basin. Per the AGR Policy, to address situations where localized EC/TDS may differ from the AGR class assigned to the basin, the Central Valley Water Board would manage the EC/TDS in the groundwater through application of the state Antidegradation Policy and Central Valley SNMP, or potentially through site- specific objectives. Thus, while there could be degradation of EC/TDS through the assignment and management of EC/TDS through the proposed AGR classes, that degradation would be managed and limited such that it would not adversely affect the AGR beneficial uses that rely on groundwater in the Central Valley Region. Consequently, implementation of the AGR Policy would result in a less-than-significant impact to groundwater EC/TDS levels.

The AGR Policy does not affect the interpretation of the Chemical Constituents objective as it applies to groundwaters designated for MUN use. The Chemical Constituents objectives for EC/TDS for protection of MUN are addressed by the Secondary MCL Guidance, assessed separately below.



Salinity Variance Policy

The current Salinity Variance Program applies to EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate, and sodium and sunsets on June 30, 2019. The Salinity Variance Policy proposes to amend the program to allow the authorization of variances up to 15 years following the effective date of the Basin Plan amendments that revise the program, and extend application of variances to salinity parameters for protection of the MUN beneficial use in addition to the AGR use. Permittees applying for a variance would be required to demonstrate how their discharge situation is similar or comparable to the case studies evaluated for the current Salinity Variance Program, which consisted of three municipal wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to surface waters (City of Tracy, City of Stockton, and City of Manteca).

The Staff Report supporting incorporation of current Salinity Variance Program into the Basin Plans included an assessment of environmental impacts, including the potential for water quality degradation (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2014). The water quality degradation analysis was based on modeling of EC in the receiving waters for each case study wastewater discharger (Larry Walker Associates 2012) and concluded that effects on ambient water quality levels in both near the point of discharge and at downstream locations would be imperceptible. The Larry Walker Associates (2012) study also concluded that the authorization of salinity variances would have no effect on San Joaquin River flow requirements, as they would affect U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operations. Salinity levels in the south Delta are largely driven by the salinity of water in the San Joaquin River near Vernalis that flows into the south Delta and the salts contributed by agricultural practices within the region. Point source impacts from wastewater treatment facilities contribute relatively little to the salinity levels measured in the south Delta (Larry Walker Associates 2012). To address the potential for continued degradation of surface water quality for salts where a variance is granted, conditions within the current Salinity Variance Program will continue to apply. This includes the establishment of performance-based limitations to cap discharge of salts at existing levels, and development and implementation of a pollution prevention plan to control salt loading and contribute to reductions in salt in wastewater effluents. Based on these findings and considerations, there would be no substantial degradation of water quality for salinity where variances would be authorized. Consequently, implementation of the SNMP Salinity Variance Policy would result in a less-than-significant impact to water quality.

Offsets Policy

The Offsets Policy proposes to allow dischargers to use offset projects within the same groundwater basin, subbasin or management zone toward compliance with WDRs for a given pollutant, allowing consideration of the net effect of the discharge and the offset project on groundwater quality. An offset allows for the management of other sources and loads of a constituent not directly associated with the regulated discharge so that the combined net effect on groundwater quality of the basin, subbasin or management zone (as a volume-weighted average) from the discharge and the offset is functionally equivalent to (and potentially better than) that which would have occurred by requiring the discharger to comply with its WDR at the point of discharge. As a condition of approval and implementation, the discharge plus an offset project cannot result in unmitigated localized impairments (e.g., hotspots) to sensitive areas, especially



drinking water supply wells, nor have a disproportionate impact on a disadvantaged community. Also, the offset project must result in a net improvement in existing water quality for the basin, subbasin or management zone compared to baseline conditions that would occur under current regulatory requirements. As defined by the implementation requirements, an offset project would result in the total constituent loading to a basin, subbasin, or management zone system to be reduced.

Offset projects may address water quality impairments in the groundwater underlying the discharge or may be in areas separate from point of discharge. For example, using Offset Example #1 from the Offset Policy document in the SNMP, a discharger may construct storm water recharge basins to increase percolation to groundwater within the same basin, such that on a volume-weighted basis there is a net improvement to water quality in the basin. In this example, the localized impairment associated with the discharge would continue, but there would be an overall benefit to the basin. Using Offset Example #2 from the Offsets Policy document in the SNMP, a discharger could implement a de-salting project (e.g., reverse osmosis) in the same groundwater basin, but in an area of the basin that would benefit a local community utilizing the groundwater as a drinking water supply. In this example, there would continue to be water quality degradation at the point of discharge, but an overall benefit to the basin would be achieved through an “offsetting” improvement to groundwater quality elsewhere in the basin, where groundwater is being used for MUN supply.

In conclusion, with implementation of offsets according to the Offset Policy implementation requirements, there would be improvements to water quality on a basin, subbasin, and management zone scale. However, because there is the potential for long-term degradation of water quality, relative to existing conditions, on a localized basis within groundwater basins, subbasins, and management zones, on a long-term average basis, that could adversely affect the direct use of the degraded water for MUN or AGR uses within the local area, it is concluded that the Offsets Policy could result in localized potentially significant impacts with regard to water quality degradation. Because there is the potential for the degraded water quality conditions to remain over the long-term, this impact is considered potentially significant and unavoidable.

Option 1: Option 1 would allow the use of offsets across groundwater basins and subbasins, and management zones. Thus, this would mean that there could be continued localized water quality degradation within one basin, subbasin or management zone while there is an improvement in another basin, subbasin or management zone. For the reasons described above for the proposed policy, Option 1 could result in a potentially significant impact with regard to water quality degradation.

Option 2: Option 2 would allow offsets only in the area specific to which the discharge impact is occurring and that would result in water quality objectives being attained. Projects that occur only in the area of discharge impact that result in water quality objectives being attained are essentially a compliance project, not an offset project. This situation is more restrictive in its implementation than the proposed policy. Because attainment of water quality objectives is a condition of this option, which would require



an improvement over the existing conditions, Option 2 would have no impact with regard to water quality degradation.

Drought and Water Conservation Policy

The Drought and Water Conservation Policy includes recommended modifications to how compliance with water quality objectives for salinity-related parameters is assessed, to facilitate recycled water use and compliance with WDRs, particularly during drought periods. Each recommendation is addressed separately below.

Groundwater Discharge Compliance with Salinity Objectives

The policy recommends that compliance with groundwater salinity objectives be assessed using a long-term (10+year) flow-weighted average, and consider recharge and potential dilution from precipitation and streambed percolation in the same basin/subbasin. This compliance approach is not expected to result in substantial changes in salinity levels relative to existing conditions. Groundwater basins undergo seasonal and annual fluctuations in response to discharge conditions and natural precipitation and percolation, and this would be unchanged with this policy and substantial degradation of water quality for salinity parameters would not occur that would adversely affect beneficial uses. Rather, the discharges that may be deemed out of compliance with WDRs through assessment of compliance on a short-term (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly or annual) basis would no longer be deemed out of compliance.

Authorize Use of Offset Projects

The potential for the use of offset projects to result in substantial degradation to water quality is addressed above under “Offsets Policy.”

Temporary Variance/Exception During Drought Periods

The Drought and Water Conservation Policy proposes to grant exceptions/variances from meeting salinity-related water quality objectives on a temporary basis and under specific drought circumstances as declared by the governor, a local state of emergency declaration, or an extended dry period for the Lower San Joaquin River. As has been previously discussed under “Exceptions Policy” and “Salinity Variance Policy,” degradation to water quality would occur when an exception or variance is granted. However, given the temporary nature in which these exceptions/variances would be applied, this degradation would not contribute to long-term or wide-spread adverse effects to MUN or AGR beneficial uses.

Temporary Variance/Exception Where Discharge Quality is Better than Receiving Water Quality

Where a discharge quality is better than the receiving water quality, the discharge could not contribute to degradation of water quality. Therefore, granting a variance/exception in these circumstances would not result in degradation that would result in adverse effects to beneficial uses relative to existing conditions.



Based on the above considerations, the Drought and Water Conservation Policy would have a less-than-significant impact to water quality degradation for salinity parameters.

Option: An option is proposed to include boron in the Drought and Water Conservation Policy. Exceptions would be authorized by the Central Valley Water Board for boron subject to the same conditions and performance obligations on the discharger(s) as for other constituents for which exceptions are authorized. The above-described effects to water quality degradation for salinity-related constituents would also apply to boron and the impacts would be less than significant.

Secondary MCL Guidance

Secondary MCLs have two existing regulatory applications in the Central Valley Region for regulating water quality. First, secondary MCLs are drinking water standards to protect the odor, taste, and appearance of drinking water. Attainment with secondary MCLs in drinking water, as it is served to consumers, is measured in the groundwater source or at distribution system entry points. This can means that for potable water purveyors, secondary MCLs are may be evaluated after the water has been treated, which in many cases means that water has been filteredtreated. Secondary MCLs are also applied as water quality objectives (incorporated by reference into the Basin Plans) applicable to surface waters and groundwater for protection of the MUN use. This means that a water body, such as a river, must meet the secondary MCL in its untreated state even though the untreated water would not be served to consumers without some form of treatment or filtration. The Secondary MCL Guidance consists of many recommendations, which are addressed separately below.

Secondary MCLs for TDS, EC, Chloride, and Sulfate

For TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate, the secondary MCLs consist of three values: recommended, upper, and short-term. The Secondary MCL Guidance is recommending that the Basin Plans be amended to incorporate language that will clarify the use of the upper and short-term values when issuing WDRs, which acknowledges that there is a range of TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate concentrations within which MUN uses are protected. Issuing WDRs based on the upper and short-term MCLs would result in higher allowable levels of TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate than has been historically permitted, as the current permitting approach primarily utilizes the lowest, recommended value (which is also an option for this guidance – see Section 4.1.3.6). However, the proposed approach (which will clarify the use of the upper and short-term values when issuing WDRs) is not expected to result in substantial degradation of water quality, relative to existing conditions. Salts are extremely difficult to control in discharges, hence the ongoing work by CV-SALTS and the development of the Central Valley SNMP. Thus, most wastewater, agricultural, and storm water discharges do not have specific treatment processes in place to remove TDS, EC, chloride, and sulfate. Wastewater treatment plant owners and operators in the Central Valley have implemented actions to control salt loading to their facilities over approximately the last ten years, through limiting chemical usage (e.g., using ultraviolet disinfection rather than chlorine) or through service area controls (e.g., water softener control/removal ordinances) resulting from salinity minimization plans/pollution prevention plans, in compliance with NPDES permit provisions. Storm water and agricultural BMPs (e.g.,

Commented [A29]: Surface water suppliers can also use source water if they want. Many do as most source waters are below the standards in our area.



sediment basins, filter strips) are typically concerned with reducing particulates in discharges, not salts, and implementation of these BMPs and resulting water quality are not expected to substantially change due to the SMCL Policy for EC, TDS, chloride, and sulfate, because regulatory requirements related to control of particulates (e.g., turbidity objectives, suspended sediment objectives) would be unchanged. Further, with the issuance of WDRs must be a finding that the WDRs are consistent with the states Antidegradation Policy. Thus, while the proposed SMCL Policy would allow for WDRs with higher effluent or receiving water limitations for EC, TDS, chloride and sulfate, this is not expected to result in an appreciable change in discharge quality for these parameters. Thus, there would be no substantial degradation of water quality for these constituents upon adoption and implementation of the Secondary MCL Guidance.

Measuring Compliance with Secondary MCLs

The Secondary MCL Guidance recommends that compliance with WDRs based on secondary MCLs for metals (aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, and zinc), color, turbidity, TDS, EC, chloride, sulfate to be determined from a filtered water sample (water passed through a 0.45 micron filter).

Copper, Silver, and Zinc: The proposed compliance approach (i.e., assessing compliance from a filtered water sample) is not expected to result in substantial water quality changes for these constituents in surface waters and groundwater relative to existing conditions. For copper, silver, and zinc, there are aquatic life criteria established in the California Toxics Rule that are more restrictive than the secondary MCLs, thus WDRs for surface water discharges from wastewater, agriculture, and storm water would continue to be required to comply with the more restrictive aquatic life criteria. As such, the quality of discharges to surface waters for these metals is not expected to change following adoption and implementation of the Secondary MCL Guidance. For discharges to groundwater, this may result in a less restrictive compliance approach relative to existing conditions. However, groundwater quality, as affected by wastewater, storm water, and agricultural discharges is expected to be largely unaffected, because the processes currently in place to control/treat discharges would be expected to remain in place with this proposed approach. Therefore, the Secondary MCL Guidance would not result in substantial degradation for copper, silver, and zinc in surface waters or groundwater.

Aluminum, Iron, and Manganese: Elevated levels of these metals are can be associated with particulates in surface waters, and the dissolved concentrations for these constituents are typically less than the secondary MCLs. As stated above, sediment control is a typical component of storm water and agricultural management plans and BMPs, and implementation of these BMPs is expected to be unchanged as a result of the Secondary MCL Policy, because regulatory requirements related to control of particulates (e.g., turbidity objectives, suspended sediment objectives) would be unchanged. Thus, concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese, which are associated with particulates, in agricultural and storm water discharges is not expected to substantially change relative to existing conditions due to implementation of the Secondary MCL Policy. For

Commented [A30]: We oppose the use of a filtered sample for these constituents.

Commented [A31]: This is an unfair comparison, as aquatic life criteria are based on dissolved fractions of metals and human health criteria are based on total fractions of metals. There can be orders of magnitude difference between total and dissolved levels of metals and this could essentially allow significant increases in particulate metal loading.

Commented [A32]: The evaluation of the Secondary MCL Policy has not been considered in combination with the MUN de/re‐designation project. These programs are related because the MUN project may remove many of the MUN water quality objectives (such as turbidity) from many agricultural water bodies. If these objectives no longer apply to many ag water bodies, then the BMPs and monitoring programs will not be required to include those constituents and there will be no assurance that the levels will be unchanged.



wastewater discharges, the proposed compliance approach (i.e., assessing compliance from a filtered water sample) is not expected to result in different discharge quality, because the discharge quality is a function of the treatment processes in place, which will continue to be utilized into the future unaffected by this process (treatment processes are modified in response to more stringent effluent quality requirements, not less stringent effluent quality requirements). The proposed compliance approach may affect the degree by municipal wastewater operators/owners to control industrial sources of aluminum, iron, and manganese, but this assumes that industrial discharges are a large source of aluminum, iron, and manganese and that these metals are largely in the particulate form, which is not necessarily the case in many service areas. Many wastewater service areas in the Central Valley have relatively little industry compared to domestic and commercial sources of wastewater. Further, the presence of elevated aluminum, manganese, and iron in surface waters is can be mostly related to particulates, as most data show dissolved concentrations to be below secondary MCLs (see Section 2, Environmental Setting). Thus, surface water quality is not expected to change substantially as a result of the proposed compliance approach. Similarly, groundwater quality, as affected by wastewater, storm water, and agricultural discharges is expected to be largely unaffected, as the processes currently in place to control/treat discharges would be expected to remain in place with this proposed approach. Therefore, the Secondary MCL Guidance would not result in substantial degradation for aluminum, iron, and manganese in surface waters or groundwater.

EC, TDS, Chloride, Sulfate: For reasons described above, the Secondary MCL Guidance would not result in substantial degradation for these salinity-related constituents in surface waters or groundwater.

Turbidity: Turbidity is a measure of the relative clarity of water. While there is a secondary MCL for turbidity of 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), there also are surface water quality objectives for turbidity in the Basin Plans that limit increases in turbidity based on ambient levels. Also, turbidity is usually controlled in wastewater discharges to surface water through operational specifications to ensure that adequate treatment is provided. The proposed approach to assessing compliance with the secondary MCL for turbidity (i.e., assessing compliance from a filtered water sample) would not modify how compliance is assessed for receiving water quality objectives or operational specifications. Thus, the Secondary MCL Guidance would not result in substantial degradation for turbidity in surface waters or groundwater.

Color: Color is of concern in drinking water at the point of consumption for aesthetic reasons and can be affected by a number of factors, including the presence of other constituents that have MCLs. In addition to the secondary MCL for color, there is a surface water quality objective in the Basin Plans that states, “Water shall be free of discoloration that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses.” The proposed compliance approach (i.e., assessing compliance from a filtered water sample) would not affect this objective. There is no water quality objective for color for groundwater in the Basin Plans. The color of discharges from wastewater facilities, storm water outfall, and

Commented [A33]: There is no discussion of other types of dischargers such as industrial, mines, and extracted groundwater.

Commented [A34]: Control/treatment discharges are not guaranteed to remain in place, and may be significantly reduced if the waterbodies are de/re‐designated MUN and the water quality objectives removed, which could lead to water quality impacts.

Commented [A35]: If you filter it, it will be less. Data will not be useful to determine actual risk to downstream MUN use. Turbidity is a key indicator of solids contribution from agricultural dischargers. Much of the ILRP was scaled back to exclude specific constituents and rely on indicators. The SECP is the key BMP for solids, and turbidity is a necessary measurement of its success. If samples are filtered, it will not be able to ascertain success as it will be significantly influenced by results that are not representative of water quality improvements or impacts.

Commented [A36]: What beneficial uses does this apply to?

Commented [A37]: WWTPs are not a significant source of turbidity; there are other sources of turbidity (including other NPDES permits and WDR programs) that should be discussed in this section.

Commented [A38]: This is incorrect. Filtering it will remove particulates that cause the color. Again, it is a waste similar to turbidity.



agricultural drains is a result of treatment for actual constituents, not color itself. For the reasons described above, levels of constituents with secondary MCLs are not expected to be substantially different from existing conditions with the proposed compliance assessment approach. Because of this consideration, as well as the fact that the surface water quality objective for color would be unaffected, there would be no substantial degradation of water quality for color with implementation of the Secondary MCL Guidance.

Consideration of Natural Background

The Basin Plans include the following text within Chapter 4 of the Basin Plans (Policy for Application of Water Quality Objectives): “However, the water quality objectives do not require improvement over naturally occurring background concentrations. In cases where the natural background concentration of a particular constituent exceeds an applicable water quality objective, the natural background concentration will be considered to comply with the objective.” (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015:IV-21, 2016:IV-17.00) The means for implementing this provision in WDRs with regard to secondary MCLs has not always been clear. Therefore, the Secondary MCL Guidance recommends the Basin Plans be amended to make clear that where the natural background is greater than secondary MCLs, including the “Upper” levels, that the water body shall not exceed the natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources. By definition, if controllable anthropogenic sources could not cause water quality concentrations for secondary MCL constituents to exceed natural background concentrations, then no water quality degradation relative to secondary MCLs would occur in these circumstances.

Consideration of Dilution/Attenuation

The Secondary MCL Guidance recommends that the Central Valley Water Board continue to consider dilution or other attenuation between the point of discharge and any downstream (surface water) or downgradient (groundwater) community water system. Among the many factors that the Central Valley Water Board would consider when implementing the SMCLs in WDRs, is the potential for the permitted discharge to affect the concentration of constituents identified in 22 CCR Tables 64449-A and 64449-B in downstream andat downgradient MUN water bodies and groundwater basinscommunity water systems to ensure a safe drinking water supply for users, as well as the long-term cumulative impact of all discharges to the same receiving water. This would be supported, as needed, with additional monitoring to track the net effect of permitted discharges at locations upgradient of downgradient well locations where groundwater is extracted for water supply and to determine the need for additional management requirements to protect the supply. Existing policy allows for the Central Valley Water Board to grant mixing zones and dilution credit (including attenuation) for surface water discharges, which are required to be as small as practicable. With the Secondary MCL Guidance, emphasis on mixing zones being as small as practicable would remain. Thus, the guidance, relative to surface waters, would not result in a substantial change in the control of surface water discharges. For groundwater, with the consideration of attenuation, groundwater quality would continue to be regulated relative to the secondary MCLs as an upper limit to protect MUN. Thus, the allowance of consideration of attenuation in groundwater would

Commented [A39]: Color is caused by reflection of particulate matter. i.e., something is in there. This statement should be reevaluated for technical approach and understanding of this water quality parameter. If color is observed, it may be from precipitation of dissolved constituents such as metals, which are a concern.

Commented [A40]: We continue to support our concern that the source water of the MUN water bodies need to be protected for current and future MUN use.

Commented [A41]: This statement needs further review and consideration of all upstream types of discharges.



not adversely affect beneficial uses and would have a less-than-significant impact with regard to water quality degradation.

Option: The options to this approach presented in Section 4.1.3.6 are more restrictive (i.e., would regulate discharge quality more stringently) and thus would allow even lesser water quality degradation than could potentially occur under the Secondary MCL Guidance. Nevertheless, the options to the guidance would not lessen or eliminate a significant water quality impact caused by implementing the guidance because no significant impact to water quality would occur from implementing the Secondary MCL Guidance.

Compliance Assessment Time Period

The Secondary MCL Guidance recommends that compliance with WDRs based on secondary MCLs be assessed on an annual average basis. This is consistent with implementation of many WDRs for wastewater discharges to surface waters in the Central Valley Region; thus, this approach to permitting wastewater discharges would not result in changes to surface water quality relative to existing conditions. For wastewater discharges to groundwater, this would not be expected to contribute to substantially different water quality, as the groundwater quality is affected by long-term discharge conditions. For storm water discharges to surface water or groundwater, such an approach is not expect to result in significant degradation, as storm water discharges are not year-round and are addressed through storm water management plans and implementation of BMPs to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, which would not change with implementation of the guidance. Similarly, for agricultural discharges, trigger limits based on receiving water objectives are used as the basis for determining whether a pollutant needs to be addressed in a surface water or groundwater quality plan, which also would not change with implementation of the guidance. Based on the considerations discussed above, the compliance assessment time period aspect of the Secondary MCL Guidance would not result in substantial degradation of surface water or groundwater that would adversely affect beneficial uses.

Fate and Transport Study

Finally, the guidance states that the Central Valley Water Board may require a fate and transport study prior to issuing WDRs based on secondary MCLs. The options establish different criteria for requiring a study. The requirement for a fate and transport study, in itself, does not establish new WDRs or affect levels of constituents with secondary MCLs; rather it provides information on water quality conditions. Thus, neither the fate and transport study proposed under the guidance nor that proposed under the options would cause water quality degradation.

Based on the above considerations, the Secondary MCL Guidance would have a less-than- significant impact to water quality degradation.

Commented [A42]: Why is this option included that is more stringent than current requirements? We are not aware of any stakeholder requesting consideration of this option.

Commented [A43]: We are concerned that there was insufficient evaluation conducted to support this conclusion. What was the basis for this conclusion?



Alternative Compliance Project Guidelines

When an individual or group of dischargers is unable to demonstrate that their discharge is not causing or contributing to nitrate degradation in groundwater above the triggers identified in the Central Valley SNMP, they have an opportunity to request either allocation of available assimilative capacity or an exception. In most cases, the request for the granting of assimilative capacity or an exception in these circumstances will trigger the need for submittal of a proposed alternative compliance project. This request may be made as an individual discharger (which includes a third party group subject to a general order) or dischargers working collaboratively as part of a management zone. The Alternative Compliance Project Guidelines establish the components of an Alternative Compliance Project. These guidelines do not establish new water quality standards or implementation of water quality standards. To the extent that an Alternative Compliance Project would involve construction of new facilities, that project would undergo separate environmental review to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts. Thus, adoption and implementation of the Alternative Compliance Project Guidance would have no impact on water quality degradation.

Maximum Benefit Guidance

The Maximum Benefit Guidance provides a list of water quality degradation and socioeconomic factors for the Central Valley Water Board to consider when making a determination whether WDRs are “consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State” portion of the state Antidegradation Policy. The list of factors includes examples to illustrate some, but not all, of the possible approaches to making a maximum benefit demonstration. Within the existing regulatory framework, the Central Valley Water Board considers water quality degradation and socioeconomics factors when making findings in WDRs regarding consistency with the state Antidegradation Policy. The proposed guidance simply provides further definition to what those factors can be. Thus, adoption and implementation of the Maximum Benefit Guidance would have no impact on water quality degradation, as the Central Valley Water Board already makes findings regarding allowable degradation considering a variety of environmental and socioeconomic conditions, including those identified in the Maximum Benefit Guidance.

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING


Impact




Impact

No Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established community?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdictionover the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan?

Discussion

The discussion below for Land Use and Planning describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly physically divide an established community.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. These projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to physically divide a community, because such projects would be expected to sited adjacent to or outside of established communities, in areas which there would be available land (e.g., agricultural lands), or otherwise situated in a manner that would not create a barrier to movement through a community (e.g., extended pipelines would be placed underground). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on physically dividing an established community.

b,c) As described above for “a”, the Proposed Project does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water



Board. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. A potential direct effect of the Proposed Project may be elevated nitrate in the interim while projects are being developed and implemented (see Section 5.9), which may preclude a local groundwater aquifer from being used as a drinking water supply. Having a limited water supply may prevent land development (e.g., new housing) from occurring according to an adopted land use plan. However, a component of the Nitrate Permitting Strategy is the requirement for an Alternative Compliance Project proposal, which may include both interim actions (e.g., bottled water) in the short-term, permanent solutions (such as well- head treatment or alternative drinking water supplies) in the intermediate term, and efforts to re-attain the water quality objective (where feasible and practicable) over the long-term. Because provisions have been included in the Proposed Project policies and permitting strategies to provide for safe drinking water alternatives, the Proposed Project would not directly result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.

As described above for “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management. However, it is expected that these projects would be compatible with land use plans, policies, and regulations, as well as with a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. This is primarily due to the size, nature, and anticipated siting of these projects (primarily in agricultural and urban areas) and the fact that each project would be required to undergo separate, project-specific environmental review and permitting before it can be constructed and operated. Project refinement, development of impact avoidance and minimization measures, and mitigation, where warranted, would prevent conflict with provisions of adopted land use and conservation plans.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact relative to conflicts with land use plans, policies, and regulations, and Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans.

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known

mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?



Discussion

The discussion below for Mineral Resources describes direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a,b) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation

of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. As such, it does not involve mineral resources. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state Consequently, the Proposed Project would not be expected to directly result in any adverse effects to mineral resources.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects are not expected to result in the loss of availability of mineral resources of importance locally or to the state because the construction of the anticipated projects would not eliminate or prevent the extraction of underlying mineral resources. Moreover, separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate, as necessary, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate any identified significant environmental impacts.

The Proposed Project would, therefore, have no impact on the availability of mineral resources.

5.12 NOISE


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XII. NOISE. Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

The discussion below for Noise describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a,b,c,d) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate

implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no direct adverse effects on the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards, excessive groundborne vibration or permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing conditions.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared



to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on air quality. Nevertheless, the use of heavy machinery in the construction of these projects could potentially, on a short-term basis, contribute to exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards and excessive groundborne vibration. However, any such effects, should they occur, would be temporary in nature during construction. The effects of excessive noise from construction equipment would depend on the distance between the construction activities and the sensitive receptors (e.g., residential areas). The effects can be reduced through limiting the time period and days of the week during which construction activities can occur, prohibiting use of unmuffled equipment, and limiting idle time, and notifications to residents regarding work schedule. There is the potential for some projects to produce a permanent increase in ambient noise, but noise levels from such facilities would be from the running of equipment (e.g., pumps), thus, not resulting in a substantial increase in noise above ambient levels.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards, excessive groundborne vibration and temporary and permanent increase in ambient noise levels above existing conditions.

e,f) As described above for “a,” the Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of

new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Therefore, the Proposed Project does not directly involve development of a project near or in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Also, as described above for “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. These projects would not be related to development near an airport or airstrip. As described above for “c,” these projects would not be expected to result in substantial increases in noise levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on excessive noise levels within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of an airport, or in the vicinity of a private airstrip.

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

housing elsewhere?

Discussion

The discussion below for Population and Housing describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation

of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. As such, the Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new housing or businesses, and does not permit additional capacity to POTW dischargers. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not directly induce population growth in an area or displace substantial numbers of existing housing.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. As groundwater quality is improved and provision of a safe water supply is assured for a community, this may encourage those residing in the community to stay long-term and others not residing in the community to move there. However, these projects involving community water systems or groundwater pump and treat systems are not expected to result in substantial population growth, as they would primarily be for the purpose of providing water supplies to existing demands, with some provision for additional capacity, as appropriate for the specific site.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact on inducement of substantial population growth.

b) For the reasons described above for “a” the Proposed Project would not directly result in

new construction, thus, would not result in the displacement of existing housing. Also, as described above for “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. These projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would be expected to be constructed on lands currently used for similar facilities or on lands not used for housing



(e.g., agricultural lands, which is addressed in Section 5.2). Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing.

c) The availability of a safe and reliable drinking water supply is an important factor in the

ability of people to reside in a particular area. Aspects of the Proposed Project (e.g., Nitrate Permitting Strategy, Exceptions Policy) would allow for some degradation of salts and nitrate in groundwater, as described above in Section 5.9. Drinking water MCLs for salts (e.g., EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate) address consumer acceptance levels and the drinking water MCL for nitrate is for protection of human health.

The elevated salts in groundwater used as drinking water supplies is generally of concern relative to the palatability of water (i.e., having a salty taste) and scaling on household fixtures, which can shorten the life of appliances. Because these are consumer-acceptability concerns and not human health concerns, degradation of groundwater for salts is not expected to result in the displacement of people from their existing homes.

Because elevated nitrate is a human health concern, areas where nitrate concentration in groundwater is close to or already exceed the drinking water MCL and would be further degraded, as would be allowed by the Proposed Project, has the potential to adversely affect the use of that water as a drinking water supply, relative to existing conditions. To situations where there is little to no assimilative capacity for nitrate and the discharge concentration is greater than the MCL, the Proposed Project requires the implementation of an Alternative Compliance Project for individual dischargers or an Early Action Plan for management zones. An Alternative Compliance Project must prioritize assurance that drinking water that meets drinking water standards is available to all drinking water users within the zone of influence where there are significant nitrate water quality concerns in groundwater (Guidelines for Developing Alternative Compliance Projects for Nitrate Discharges, Attachment A-10 of the SNMP, Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long- term Sustainability 2016). Similarly, an Early Action Plan is to include specific actions and a schedule of implementation to address the immediate drinking water needs of those initially identified within the management zone boundary that are drinking groundwater that exceeds nitrate standards (Groundwater Management Zone Policy, Attachment A-1 of the SNMP, Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability 2016).

Thus, because the Proposed Project prioritizes providing a safe and reliable drinking water supply to communities that would be affected by potential future adverse nitrate conditions in groundwater, the Proposed Project would not directly result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Also, as described above for “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management. These projects are not expected to displace substantial numbers of existing people, because it is anticipated they would be located in areas of low population and small communities around which there would be available land.



Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact on the displacement of substantial number of people.

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities?

Discussion

The discussion below for Public Services describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would affect the needs for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not be expected to directly result in any adverse effects to public services.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management;



3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects are not expected to result in the need for facilities changes for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities, because the construction of the anticipated projects would be public works in nature, not new housing that would increase public demand from such facilities. Moreover separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate, as necessary, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts.

The Proposed Project would, therefore, have no impact on fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

5.15 RECREATION


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XV. RECREATION. a) Would the Project increase the use of existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

The discussion below for Recreation describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a-b) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation

of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, parks, recreational facilities, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board that would increase the demand for recreational facilities. Consequently, the Proposed Project would not be expected to directly result in any adverse effects to neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate



management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Such projects do not involve the construction of housing that would contribute to a substantial population increase in an area that would result in increased demand for parks or other recreational facilities. Moreover, separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate, as necessary, measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts.

The Proposed Project would, therefore, have no impact on the use of or demand for recreational facilities.

5.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or

policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?



ISSUES


Impact




Impact

No Impact

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities?

Discussion

The discussion below for Transportation/Traffic describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.

a,b) The Proposed Project is a set of amendments to the Basin Plans to facilitate implementation

of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board, nor does it affect regional traffic or traffic patterns or conflict with applicable congestion management programs such as level of service standards. Further, the Proposed Project does not permit POTWs additional discharge capacity that would induce growth nor would result in changes to agricultural operations, as related to transportation/traffic generation. As such, the Proposed Project would have no direct adverse effects on transportation/traffic.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Insufficient information pertaining to the setting, size, and design of such projects was available at the time this documentation was prepared to enable making a detailed, definitive impact assessment of the indirect effects of such projects on transportation/traffic. Nevertheless, traffic generation on local roadways in the vicinity of these projects may increase during construction of these projects, however, the increase in traffic would be temporary in nature, limited to the duration of the project. Traffic generation may also increase following completion of the project, related to personnel trips necessary to operate these new projects, however, such projects are not expected to be substantial traffic generators that would reduce the level of service of nearby roadways and intersections. Hence, the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in substantial, long-term adverse effects to air quality or sensitive receptors.



Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact relative to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for performance of a circulation system; and relative to conflict with an applicable congestion management program.

c) For the reasons described above for “a,b” the Proposed Project would not directly result in

adverse effect to air traffic. Also, as described above, implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to conflict with air traffic patterns, because these projects would not be related to air travel. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns.

d) For the reasons described above for “a,b” the Proposed Project would not directly result in

hazards related to a transportation design feature or incompatible uses. Also, as described above, implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to increase transportation hazards, because these projects would not be related to transportation design or otherwise result in generation of traffic from incompatible uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses.

e) For the reasons described above for “a,b” the Proposed Project would not directly result in

inadequate emergency access. Also, as described above, implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in inadequate emergency access, because these projects would not be related to transportation design or modifications to circulation systems. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on emergency access.

f) For the reasons described above for “a,b” the Proposed Project would not directly result in a

conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit or bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or their safety performance. Also, as described above, implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in adverse effects to public transit or bicycle or pedestrian facilities, because these projects would not be related to transportation design or modifications to circulation systems. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on public transit or bicycle or pedestrian facilities.



5.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS


Impact




Impact

No Impact

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

The discussion below for Utilities and Service Systems describes the direct and indirect impacts that would occur from adoption and implementation of the Proposed Project.


implementation of innovative salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL management strategies, in the form of new and modified regulatory policies, to improve surface water and groundwater quality within Region 5. As a regulatory action, the Proposed Project itself would not cause exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Water Board. Rather, the Proposed Project is an action of the Central Valley Water Board to establish new and revised policies for the regulation of point source discharges to surface waters and groundwater within the Central Valley Region. The Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities by the Central Valley Water Board. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not

Commented [A44]: This may be a potentially significant impact. For example, water treatment and residual management facilities may need to be modified to address increased solids, increased loading, etc. Increased water treatment and residual management facilities can result in environmental effects that would need to be mitigated.



exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management, to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. Nevertheless, these projects that may indirectly result from implementing the Proposed Project would not be expected to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, because they would be implemented for the purpose of compliance of wastewater treatment requirements.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.

b,c) As described above for “a”, the Proposed Project itself does not directly involve the

construction of new buildings, services, or other facilities and, thus, would not directly result in new water or wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage needs. Also, as described above for “a,” implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for specific projects for salt and nitrate management. Some of these projects may be water or wastewater treatment, or storm water management projects. Construction of such projects may involve temporary environmental effects to other resource categories, as discussed for other sections within this checklist (e.g., air quality, transportation/traffic). However, the construction of such projects would generally be for improvement in the environmental condition, and the environmental effects that would occur during construction would be temporary in nature. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the construction of new or expanded water treatment, wastewater treatment, and storm water drainage facilities.

d,e,f,g) As described above for “a,” as a regulatory action, the Proposed Project does not

directly or indirectly involve construction of new housing or other buildings that would require appreciable demand for water, wastewater, or solid waste service. Projects undertaken indirectly as a result of the Proposed Project would be for the purpose of improving water and wastewater treatment conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on the need for water supplies, wastewater treatment capacity, solid waste disposal needs, or compliance with statutes and regulations related to solid waste.



5.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion

a) As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, with the Proposed Project, there would be no change to the biological resources-related beneficial use designations (e.g., WARM, COLD, WILD, BIOL, RARE, MIGR, SPWN) or associated water quality objectives, or implementation programs related to these beneficial uses or objectives. Further, the Proposed Project does not directly involve the construction of new buildings or other facilities. Thus, the Proposed Project would have no direct impact on the quality or quantity of habitat for any fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; a plant or animal community; or a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. However, projects that may be constructed as a result of implementation of the Proposed Project may result in altered instream flow patterns (e.g., on-farm recharge projects) or new discharges to surface waters (e.g., brine line discharges to San Francisco Bay) may result in indirect impacts to biological resources. Because separate project-specific environmental review would be performed prior to project construction and operation to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate any necessary measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate for any identified significant environmental impacts, no impact determination is made. Nevertheless,



decisions makers should recognize the potential of such indirect effects from implementation of the Proposed Project on the quality or quantity of habitat for fish or wildlife species; fish or wildlife populations; plant or animal communities; rare or endangered plants or animals; or examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) The Environmental Checklist analysis (Sections 5.1 through 5.17) concluded that the

Proposed Project would have no direct impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. As such, the Proposed Project would not directly contribute to a cumulative impact to these resource categories.

Implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to indirectly result in the need for surface and groundwater dischargers to construct specific projects for salt and nitrate management to achieve compliance with WDRs or other provisions that may result from the Board’s implementation of the Proposed Project. The projects may consist of: 1) new community water systems as part of creating a long-term drinking water solution; 2) systems to pump, treat, and reinject groundwater for nitrate and salt management; 3) creation of on-farm groundwater recharge basins to reduce groundwater nitrate concentrations; 4) regional desalter facilities and a pipeline from the San Joaquin Valley to the San Francisco Bay to dispose of brine. These projects could indirectly cause impacts at the local level from construction of the projects/facilities to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, and transportation and traffic. However, the construction activities indirectly resulting from the Proposed Project would not contribute to any long-term adverse cumulative condition to these resources, because the construction activities would be temporary in nature.

Operation of the projects that would indirectly occur from the Proposed Project could result in indirect less than significant and potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. There would be no indirect impacts to mineral resources, public services, and recreation. The specific projects and locations of the projects have not been defined to a level that allows for identifying whether the projects would occur in areas with cumulatively adverse conditions for aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. This assessment does not speculate on whether the Proposed Project would indirectly contribute considerably to a cumulative condition for these resources, because the location and scope of the future projects is unspecified or uncertain (Cal.



Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15145). However, decision makers should recognize that a project may be located in a non-attainment area for air quality or where cumulative traffic conditions are forecasted to be adverse, for example, and may contribute considerably to an adverse cumulative condition for one or more resources. Because separate project- specific environmental review would be performed prior to the construction and operation of specific projects for salt and nitrate management to identify project-specific environmental impacts and to incorporate measures to avoid, reduce, or mitigate any identified significant environmental impacts to the extent feasible, and because parties other than the State of California may serve as the project proponents and thus be responsible for mitigation measures, should they be necessary, no mitigation measures are proposed here.

The Environmental Checklist analysis concluded that the Proposed Project impacts to water quality degradation would be “no impact,” “less than significant,” or “potentially significant,” depending on the particular SNMP strategy, policy, or guidance document considered (see Section 5.9). The constituents of concern to water quality degradation with the Proposed Project include salts (EC, TDS, chloride, sulfate and sodium), nitrate, and additional parameters with secondary MCLs (aluminum, color, copper, iron, manganese, silver, turbidity, and zinc). Thus, this cumulative assessment is focused on cumulative water quality conditions for these constituents of concern in surface waters and groundwaters within the Central Valley Region.

Cumulative Surface Water Quality Conditions

Past and present projects or actions affecting surface water bodies within the Central Valley Region have resulted in the existing water quality conditions for these water bodies. Aside from the Proposed Project, reasonably foreseeable future actions that could affect surface water quality for the constituents of concern to this assessment in the Central Valley Region include the Lower San Joaquin River salt and boron TMDL, ILRP, storm water management programs, continued implementation of the NPDES program, CVP and SWP operations in compliance with regulatory requirements, and California Water Action Plan. The salt and boron TMDL, ILRP, and storm water management programs are all aimed at making improvements to water quality in the Central Valley Region. The California Water Plan lays out actions to improve water management in the state and CVP and SWP operations in compliance with regulatory requirements including compliance with Bay-Delta WQCP objectives for the salinity parameters EC and chloride.

Salinity Parameters

Salinity (as measured by EC and/or TDS) conditions within surface waters of the Central Valley Region are variable, with some areas of the region having concentrations of these constituents that adversely affect the ability to use the water for AGR and/or MUN purposes. Portions of the Sacramento, San Joaquin River, Tulare Lake, and Delta hydrologic regions have water bodies on the state’s CWA section 303(d) list of impaired



water bodies due to salinity, EC, and/or TDS relative to the protection of AGR and MUN beneficial uses. In the future cumulative condition, the concentrations of salts in surface waters of the Central Valley Region are not expected to be substantially worse and, in fact, are expected to remain at similar levels or improve somewhat, relative to existing conditions in many water bodies, due to implementation of the Central Valley SNMP and other Central Valley Water Board actions, such as development and implementation of TMDLs for impaired water bodies. In the future cumulative condition, through implementation of the SNMP and TMDLs, dischargers in the Central Valley Region will have implemented treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of salts to surface waters. An component of the SNMP is the Salinity Variance Policy, which proposes to amend the existing Salinity Variance Program to allow the authorization of variances up to 15 years following the effective date of the Basin Plan amendments that revise the program, and extend application of variances to salinity parameters for protection of the MUN beneficial use in addition to the AGR use. During this period, municipal wastewater dischargers could be granted variances from meeting WQBELs for salinity constituents, provided that these dischargers are their discharge situation is similar or comparable to the case studies evaluated for the current Salinity Variance Program. An additional condition for obtaining the variance is that the discharger would participate in the Salinity Management Strategy Prioritization and Optimization Study. Modeling of the effects of granting variances to specific municipal wastewater discharges concluded that the effects on ambient salinity levels both near the point of discharge and at downstream locations would be imperceptible (Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 2014, Larry Walker Associates). Further, these variances would be limited to the period during which the Salinity Management Strategy is implemented. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative condition with respect to salinity parameters.

Nitrate

Within surface waters of the Sacramento River, Tulare Lake, and Delta hydrologic regions, nitrate concentrations are not adverse under existing conditions, relative to protection of MUN beneficial uses, with concentrations falling below the primary drinking water MCL of 10 mg/L-N (see Section 2, Environmental Setting). No beneficial uses, other than the MUN beneficial use, have numeric objectives or MCLs established for nitrate. Nitrate concentrations are variable across the San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. Median concentrations in tributaries and the San Joaquin River are below 10 mg/L-N. Mud Slough and Salt Slough have historical concentrations above the 10 mg/L- N (Section 2, Environmental Setting); however, MUN is not a designated beneficial use of these water bodies. Within primary tributaries that are direct source waters for drinking water supplies (e.g., Merced River, Cosumnes River, Tuolumne River, Stanislaus River, San Joaquin River), nitrate concentrations are below 10 mg/L-N based on recent historical concentrations (Larry Walker Associated 2016a).

The future cumulative condition assumes implementation of the Central Valley SNMP, as well as continued implementation of other regulatory programs, including NPDES



program and ILRP, to control discharges relative to applicable water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses. Therefore, future surface water nitrate conditions within the Central Valley Region are expected to be at similar levels, or possibly be improved, relative to existing conditions. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative condition with respect to nitrate.

Additional Secondary MCL Parameters

Additional secondary MCL parameters include aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity. There are no CWA section 303(d) listings for these constituents due to impairment of the MUN beneficial use, with the exception of two ephemeral creeks in the foothills above Sacramento for aluminum, iron, and manganese. Total concentrations of aluminum, iron, and manganese have been frequently measured above the respective secondary MCL levels. Elevated levels of these metals are associated with particulates (i.e., suspended sediments) in surface waters and the dissolved concentrations for these constituents are typically less than the secondary MCLs and levels of these parameters are not identified as being of concern in watershed sanitary surveys (Larry Walker Associates 2016a). Color is a parameter typically not evaluated on drinking water, thus, data to characterize surface water conditions in the Central Valley Region is not available for this assessment; however, color is generally not recognized as a parameter of concern. All surface water bodies within the Central Valley Region have variable turbidity and high turbidity in surface waters does not preclude their use as a drinking water supply.

The future cumulative condition assumes implementation of the Central Valley SNMP, as well as continued implementation of other regulatory programs, including the NPDES program and ILRP, to control discharges relative to applicable water quality objectives and protection of beneficial uses. The Secondary MCL Guidance, to be implemented as part of the SNMP, would modify how secondary MCL-related water quality objectives for aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color and turbidity would be implemented in WDRs for surface water discharges. As discussed for the Secondary MCL Guidance in Section 5.9, for copper, silver, and zinc there are more stringent aquatic life criteria that apply to surface waters, therefore, the limitations in WDRs for these metals would be unaffected by the Secondary MCL Guidance. Also, as discussed in Section 5.9, turbidity and color water quality objectives would be unchanged by the Secondary MCL Guidance, thus, implementation of the Secondary MCL Guidance is not expected to result in substantial cumulative increases in turbidity or color relative to existing conditions. Aluminum, iron, and manganese are can be associated with particulates, and because objectives related to the control of particulates (e.g., turbidity and suspended sediment objectives) would be unchanged, the SMCL guidance is not expected to result in substantial cumulative increases in these metals concentrations in surface waters as they relate to agricultural and storm water discharges (see Section 5.9). Similarly, increases in aluminum, iron, and manganese concentrations in surface water as related to municipal wastewater discharges are not expected to result in substantial cumulative

Commented [A45]: Missing Thiobencarb, MTBE, odor, and foaming agents.

Commented [A46]: We disagree with this statement. Please see comments on the antidegradation analysis document, which we incorporate by reference.

Commented [A47]: These statements are incorrect. All drinking water is evaluated for color, usually in both raw and treated. Color is another important indicator of overall quality. DWR and USGS may not have collected it, but drinking water agencies do. Color can very much be a constituent of concern, depending on what is causing it.

Commented [A48]: Please add that it does determine the amount of treatment provided to reduce levels to meet standards and higher levels result in more expensive treatment (removal and solids handling).

Commented [A49]: These are likely based on dissolved since aquatic life based, unrelatable to drinking water objectives since based on total.

Commented [A50]: This statement is incorrect and not supported. Filtration would significantly change water quality and would not correctly represent impacts from dischargers and impacts to source water quality and treatment at drinking water plants.

Commented [A51]: These metals are present in both dissolved and total fractions, variable throughout the year and over time. This assumption doesn’t address the dissolved fraction that can be contributed by mines, WWTPs, and groundwater discharges.

Commented [A52]: Turbidity is proposed to be revised as well and based on a filtered sample, which would eliminate the ability to identify true levels of solids and the associated impacts. Also, if the MUN beneficial use was de/re‐designated then these objectives may not apply at all. Therefore NPDES permits and WDRs would not include effluent limits and treatment/BMPs to address them.



increases in these metals, because the discharge quality is a function of the treatment processes in place, which will continue to be utilized into the future unaffected by this process. Therefore, future aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity conditions within Central Valley surface waters are expected to remain at similar levels to those that occur under existing conditions.

Construction of projects and facilities in the future to achieve the SNMP goals could contribute suspended sediments to surface waters near the construction sites, while construction is occurring, which could load additional aluminum, iron, manganese, other metals, color, and turbidity to receiving waters. However, construction BMPs would be implemented to minimize the input of suspended sediments to surface waters from construction projects associated with the SNMP, and any such effects would be temporary in nature and would cease upon construction ceasing and the site soils being permanently stabilized. Because construction BMPs would be implemented with any SNMP-associated construction project and because any sediment inputs to surface waters would be temporary in nature, such effects would not contribute considerably to the future cumulative condition for the secondary MCL parameters of aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity.

Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative conditions with respect to aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, or turbidity conditions.

Cumulative Groundwater Quality Conditions

Salinity Parameters

Salinity (as measured by EC and/or TDS) conditions within groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are variable, with some areas of the region having concentrations of these constituents that adversely affect the ability to use the water for AGR and/or MUN purposes (see Section 2, Environmental Setting). Hence, existing conditions for salts in groundwaters are considered to be adverse in some basins or subbasins.

In the future cumulative condition, the concentrations of salts in the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be at similar levels or be improved, relative to existing conditions, largely due to implementation of the Central Valley SNMP. In the future cumulative condition, through implementation of the SNMP, dischargers in the Central Valley Region will have implemented treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of salts to groundwaters. There may be localized areas within the region where salts may still be above levels necessary for protection of AGR and MUN uses and stabilized at levels similar to those under existing conditions or at future levels. Finally, there may be localized areas within the region where groundwater salt degradation continues to occur into the future, and remediation back to existing conditions is not feasible. This may occur, for example, where an offset project has been used to address degradation. However, on a basin/subbasin volume-weighted average

Commented [A53]: If standards change, then monitoring will not include total metals and treatment may not be optimized to current levels (in place, reduced removal?) Also, pretreatment programs will not be required if the RPA does not identify them as a concern based on dissolved only fractions and that may result in increases in effluent concentrations.

Commented [A54]: Please clarify types of facilities would be potentially constructed?



basis, which is the proposed management structure for controlling and restoring salt, an improvement in groundwater quality is expected under the future cumulative condition from implementing the Proposed Project, relative to existing conditions. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative conditions with respect to salt conditions at the basin or subbasin level; rather, the Proposed Project is expected to have a beneficial impact on the future cumulative salt conditions at the basin and subbasin level. However, because the Proposed Project would allow localized areas of groundwater basins/subbasins that are near or over the applicable water quality objective to be further degraded in the future, and because it will not be feasible to remediate all such localized areas of groundwater back to existing conditions or conditions better than existing conditions, the Proposed Project would contribute considerably to adverse future cumulative conditions of salts in some localized areas of basins/subbasins within the Central Valley. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact. Because there is the potential for the degraded water quality conditions to remain over the long-term, this impact is considered potentially significant and unavoidable.

Nitrate

Nitrate conditions within groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are variable, with some areas of the region having concentrations of these constituents that adversely affect the ability to use the water for MUN purposes (see Section 2, Environmental Setting). Hence, existing conditions for nitrate in groundwaters are considered to be adverse in some basins or subbasins.

In the future cumulative condition, the concentrations of nitrate in the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be at similar levels or be improved, relative to existing conditions, largely due to implementation of the Central Valley SNMP. In the future cumulative condition, through implementation of the SNMP, dischargers in the Central Valley Region will have implemented treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of nitrate to groundwaters. There may be localized areas within the region where nitrate may still be above levels necessary for protection of MUN uses and stabilized at levels similar to those under existing conditions or at future levels. Finally, there may be localized areas within the region where groundwater nitrate degradation continues to occur into the future, and remediation back to existing conditions is not feasible. This may occur, for example, where an offset project has been used to address degradation. However, on a basin/subbasin volume-weighted average basis, which is the proposed management structure for controlling and restoring nitrate, an improvement in groundwater quality is expected under the future cumulative condition from implementing the Proposed Project, relative to existing conditions. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project is not expected to have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative conditions with respect to nitrate conditions at the basin or subbasin level; rather, the Proposed Project is expected to have a beneficial impact on the future cumulative nitrate conditions at the basin and subbasin level. However, because the Proposed Project would allow localized areas of groundwater



basins/subbasins that are near or over the applicable water quality objective to be further degraded in the future, and because it will not be feasible to remediate all such localized areas of groundwater back to existing conditions or conditions better than existing conditions, the Proposed Project would contribute considerably to adverse future cumulative conditions of nitrate in some localized areas of basins/subbasins within the Central Valley. This is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact. Because there is the potential for the degraded water quality conditions to remain over the long-term, this impact is considered potentially significant and unavoidable.


Groundwater conditions for the additional secondary MCL parameters— aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity—are considered to not be adverse in the Central Valley Region under existing conditions. While there are localized areas where concentrations of some of these parameters have been measured above secondary MCLs, on a region-wide basis, the quality relative to these parameters, which address consumer acceptance (i.e., non-health) concerns, is considered generally suitable for MUN and AGR uses (California Department of Water Resources 2003). The trace metals of concern relative to secondary MCLs are natural elements and their presence in groundwater is largely a function of the hydrogeological conditions of the aquifers in the region. Similarly, turbidity in groundwater is caused by natural factors and typically less than 1 NTU (State Water Resources Control Board 2004). Color of groundwater is affected by the presence of other constituents that have MCLs that may be present. The natural hydrogeological processes that are occurring under existing conditions that contribute to the existing levels of trace metals, color and turbidity also would occur for the future cumulative condition. Therefore, future cumulative conditions for these parameters within the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be similar to existing conditions, and are not expected to be adverse. Consequently, implementation of the Proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative groundwater conditions with respect to the secondary MCL parameters of aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity.

c) For salts and nitrate, the Proposed Project would put policies, permitting and

management strategies, and guidance in place to ensure that a safe, reliable drinking water supply is available to residents of the Central Valley Region. The SNMP implementation policies and management strategies are directed at regulation of salt and nitrate discharges to restore beneficial use protection, including drinking water uses, where reasonable and feasible and minimizing or preventing further degradation of groundwater that are currently meeting water quality objectives so that they do not become impaired. As described in Section 5.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Proposed Project, there may be near-term degradation of salts and nitrate that could result in an adverse effect to MUN beneficial uses. To address near-term degradation of nitrate, which is a human health concern that could have an adverse effect on MUN beneficial uses, the SNMP policies require interim actions (e.g., bottled water) in the short-term, permanent solutions (such as well-head treatment or alternative drinking water supplies)



in the intermediate term, and efforts to re-attain the water quality objective (where feasible and practicable) over the long-term to protect the MUN beneficial uses. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

6 ANALYSIS OF NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

This analysis of the No Project Alternative addresses whether the No Project Alternative would: 1) lessen or eliminate any of the potentially significant impacts identified for the Proposed Project, 2) cause new or more severe potentially significant impacts compared to those identified for the Proposed Project, and 3) achieve the goals of the Proposed Project.

6.1 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no adoption of the SNMP and associated permitting strategies, policies, and guidance documents. Thus, WDRs for agriculture, wastewater, and storm water dischargers Region 5 would be based on existing water quality objectives, beneficial use designations, and programs of implementation, consistent with existing State Water Board and Central Valley Water Board plans and policies.

For agriculture, actions to achieve compliance with WDRs based on the existing regulatory framework could mean implementation of additional BMPs, such as irrigation water management and tailwater recovery systems, or a construction of drainage water collection, treatment, and disposal systems. However, it should be noted that it is uncertain whether implementation of additional BMPs by agriculture could achieve compliance with existing regulations for salts and nitrate. Where discharges to surface water or groundwater cause exceedance of water quality objectives, dischargers would be required to address those exceedances within the ten year time schedule that is established in current WDRs. If the water quality objective exceedances could not be addressed by the end of the time schedule, then those permittees could potentially be required to cease discharging. Degradation of groundwater salt and nitrate levels that is occurring under existing conditions would continue to occur in some areas of the Central Valley Region for a period of time before necessary actions to stop degradation could be implemented. The ultimate result of such actions, if feasible, would be water quality similar to existing conditions in some areas and somewhat more degraded in other areas, because restoration back to existing conditions is not anticipated to occur in all areas.

For wastewater discharges to surface waters and groundwater, implementation of the No Project Alternative would mean implementing new treatment processes to remove constituents that would cause exceedance of water quality objectives for salinity constituents, nitrate, or metals with drinking water MCLs at facilities that do not currently meet WDRs based on the existing regulatory framework. The result of such actions would be water quality at least equivalent to, if not improved, relative to existing conditions.

Commented [A55]: Are these only related to salt and nitrate standards? Please be more specific. Are there any issues complying with constituents in Table 64449‐A?

Commented [A56]: Please provide information on what problems are being encountered and how this could cause the need for these additional treatment and costs to be considered.

Commented [A57]: Please provide clarification on scope of impacts from non‐salinity secondary constituents.



Storm water discharges that cause exceedance of water quality objectives in the receiving water would be required to address exceedances through modification and implementation of the permittee’s storm water management program. No substantial degradation of water quality would be expected to occur, relative to existing conditions, because BMPs contribute to reduction in pollutant loadings and current BMPs are expected to be implemented into the future.

Based on considerations discussed above for agriculture, wastewater, and storm water dischargers, implementation of the No Project Alternative could somewhat lessen the potentially significant impacts identified for the Proposed Project for salt and nitrate levels in areas of groundwater basins/subbasins where levels are currently approaching or exceeding applicable objectives and discharges would cause further degradation in the future. However, because further degradation of such groundwater areas also would occur over a multi-year period into the future before corrective actions would be implemented under the No Project Alternative, this would be considered a potentially significant impact. As such, the No Project Alternative may somewhat lesson the potentially significant salt and nitrate water quality degradation impacts identified for the Proposed Project, but is not expected to reduce these impacts to a less-than- significant level.

In addition, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in the ultimate improvements in groundwater quality that are anticipated to occur with full implementation of the SNMP. As such, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the three goals identified for the Proposed Project.

For the No Project Alternative, potential resulting actions of having to cease agricultural discharges could result in a potentially significant impact on agricultural resources, such as the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use (e.g., land fallowing). The loss of agriculture could, in turn, result in the displacement of people that support the agricultural industry (those working directly on farms and those that work for businesses that provide agricultural products and services), which would result in the need for housing elsewhere. This would be a potentially significant impact to population and housing. Further, there would be significant economic impacts from conversion of agriculture to non-agriculture use, as described in the SNMP Economic Analysis (Larry Walker Associates 2016b).

The wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects that would be required for wastewater dischargers to achieve compliance with salt, nitrate, and secondary MCL-based objectives under the No Project Alternative would undergo project-specific CEQA evaluations. Environmental impacts that could occur during wastewater facility improvement projects include temporary impacts to air quality, noise, water quality, biological resources, traffic, and cultural resources associated with construction activities, though these can generally be mitigated to less-than- significant levels. Significant long-term impacts to environmental resources would generally not be expected because these projects typically involve reduction in pollutant loadings, and the new construction is typically within the existing site footprint. There may be increases in impervious areas, but because these areas would be small relative to the watersheds as a whole, this would not be expected to reduce groundwater recharge or adversely increase storm water runoff amounts or quality. Finally, modifications to wastewater facilities to achieve compliance with

Commented [A58]: Again, only related to salt and nitrate.

Commented [A59]: Are there any projected to be impacted?



WDRs may notably increase power use at such facilities, relative to existing power usage, depending on the type and magnitude of treatment modifications required.

Finally, additional BMP actions that may be required for storm water discharges are not themselves expected to result in any new or more severe environmental impacts compared to those identified for the Proposed Project. Any BMP actions that would be implemented by storm water permittees that have the potential for environmental impacts would undergo separate, project-specific CEQA analyses prior to implementation.

6.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Similar to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative could indirectly cause impacts at the local level to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems from construction and operation of projects/facilities necessary to achieve current regulatory requirements. Because such projects are not adequately defined for environmental review at the time this assessment was prepared, and because separate project-specific environmental review will be performed prior to project construction and operation, no cumulative impact determination is made here. Nevertheless, decisions makers should recognize the potential for indirect, cumulative effects to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems from implementation of the No Project Alternative exists, just as it does for the Proposed Project. These impacts will be further addressed, and cumulative impact determinations made, in separate project-specific environmental reviews prior to constructing the projects/facilities necessary to achieve current regulations under the No Project Alternative. Consequently, the concerns with regard to cumulative impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems under the Proposed Project also would be of concern under the No Project Alternative; however, the specific projects that would be the drivers of such effects would differ between the Proposed Project and the No Project Alternative.

Under the No Project Alternative, costly projects to collect agricultural drainage for centralized treatment and disposal or other actions would be needed to comply with current regulations. Some farmers would not be able to afford such projects/actions on their farms and thus may be forced to stop farming and possibly sell their property. For farmers that are able to participate in these projects/actions, there might still be a need to fallow land in support of the projects. If such efforts were not made to comply with existing regulations, and the Central Valley Water Board did not allow agriculture to use surface water bodies to drain salts from agricultural soils to the extent that may be needed (due to impacts to surface water quality), the salt levels in agricultural soils in the San Joaquin Valley and possibly elsewhere would eventually increase to a point where agriculture lands could no longer support current crop production, or even alternative crop production. The selling or fallowing of farmlands in an effort to comply with existing water quality regulations under the No Project Alternative and/or increasing soil salt levels over time would contribute considerably to a potentially significant cumulative impact to agriculture. This is a new potentially significant cumulative impact that would not occur under the Proposed Project.

Commented [A60]: Related to salinity and nitrate constituents only.



The remainder of this assessment focuses on cumulative impacts to water quality from implementing the No Project Alternative. This cumulative assessment is focused on cumulative water quality conditions for the same constituents of concern in surface waters and groundwaters within the Central Valley Region that were assessed for the Proposed Project.

Cumulative Surface Water Quality Conditions

Under the future cumulative condition for the No Project Alternative, the concentrations of salts, nitrate, and secondary MCL parameters (i.e., aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity) in surface waters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be at similar levels, relative to existing conditions, due to implementation of Central Valley Water Board TMDLs for impaired water bodies and other actions driven by current regulations. Under this alternative, the SNMP would not be implemented. In the future cumulative condition, dischargers in the Central Valley Region would have implemented treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of salts, nitrate, and secondary MCL parameters to surface waters, as needed, to achieve compliance with current regulations. Consequently, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative condition with respect to salinity, nitrate, or secondary MCL parameters in surface waters.

Cumulative Groundwater Quality Conditions

Salinity Parameters and Nitrate

Existing conditions for salts and nitrate in groundwaters are considered to be adverse in some areas of certain basins or subbasins. In the future cumulative condition under the No Project Alternative, the concentrations of salts and nitrate in the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be similar or possibly improved, relative to existing conditions, due to implementation of treatment and control measures and projects to reduce loading of salts and nitrate to groundwaters, as needed, to achieve compliance with current regulations. However, because the No Project Alternative would allow localized areas of groundwater basins/subbasins that are near or over the applicable water quality objective to be further degraded in the future until corrective actions are taken, and because it will not be feasible to remediate all such localized areas of groundwater back to existing conditions or conditions better than existing conditions, the No Project Alternative (like the Proposed Project) would contribute considerably to adverse future cumulative conditions of salts and nitrate in some localized areas of basins/subbasins within the Central Valley Region. This is considered to be a potentially significant. Because it is expected that some areas will remain degraded, on a localized basis, relative to existing conditions, this impact would be potentially significant and unavoidable. Consequently, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not eliminate this potentially significant impact identified for the Proposed Project for salts and nitrate in groundwater.

Commented [A61]: Are any required to be implemented? No support or basis for this is provided.




Groundwater conditions for the additional secondary MCL parameters— aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity—are considered to not be adverse in the Central Valley Region under existing conditions. Future cumulative conditions under the No Project Alternative for these parameters within the groundwaters of the Central Valley Region are expected to be similar to existing conditions, and are not expected to be adverse. Consequently, implementation of the No Project Alternative would not have a considerable contribution to any adverse cumulative groundwater conditions with respect to the secondary MCL parameters of aluminum, copper, iron, manganese, silver, zinc, color, and turbidity. The No Project Alternative would not be expected to result in any new impacts with regard to these parameters that were not identified for the Proposed Project.

7 REFERENCES

Archibald Consulting, Palencia Consulting Engineers, Starr Consulting. 2012. California State Water Project Watershed Sanitary Survey, 2011 Update. Prepared for the State Water Contractors Authority and the California Department of Water Resources. June. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/waterquality/drinkingwater/docs/Printerscopycombin.pdf>.

Ayers, R.S., and D.W. Westcot. 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture. Food and Agricultural

Organization (FAO), Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 Rev. 1, FAO, United Nations, Rome, 174 p.

California Data Exchange Center. 2016. Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San

Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification Indices. Available at: <http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIHIST>. Last updated January 19, 2016. Accessed on August 3, 2016.

California Department of Water Resources. 2003. California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118

Update 2003. October. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/update_2003.cfm>.

———. 2013a. California Water Plan – Volume 2: Regional Reports, Sacramento River

Hydrologic Region. Update 2013. Northern Regional Office, Red Bluff, CA. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/cwpu2013/final/index.cfm>.

————. 2013b. California Water Plan – Volume 2: Regional Reports, Sacramento-San

Joaquin Delta. Update 2013. North Central Region Office, Sacramento, CA. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/cwpu2013/final/index.cfm>.

————. 2013c. California Water Plan – Volume 2: Regional Reports, San Joaquin River

Hydrologic Region. Update 2013. South Central Region Office, Fresno, CA. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/cwpu2013/final/index.cfm>.



————. 2013d. California Water Plan – Volume 2: Regional Reports, Tulare Lake Hydrologic Region. Update 2013. South Central Region Office, Fresno, CA. Available at: <http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/cwpu2013/final/index.cfm>.

————. 2016a. Climate Change. Available at <http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/>.

Last updated March 14, 2016. Accessed August 3, 2016.

————. 2016b. Groundwater Information Center. Available at <http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/gwinfo/>. Last updated on May 24, 2016. Accessed on August 3, 2016.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2004. Amendments to the Water Quality

Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Salt and Boron Discharges into the Lower San Joaquin River. Appendix 1: Technical TMDL Report. Final Staff Report. July. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/ vernalis_salt_boron/#July2004DraftFinal>.

————. 2014. Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and

San Joaquin River Basins and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin to Add Policies for Variances from Surface Water Quality Standards for Point Source Dischargers, Variance Program for Salinity, and Exception from Implementation of Water Quality Objectives for Salinity, Final Staff Report. June. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/variances/index. shtml>.

————. 2015. Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition.

January. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/index.shtml>.

————. 2016. Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River

Basins, Fourth Edition. April. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/index.shtml>.

Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability. 2016. Central Valley Salt and

Nitrate Management Plan. Draft. September 12, 2016.

Faunt, C.C., ed., 2009. Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766, 225 p.

Larry Walker Associates, Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers, Kennedy Jenks,

PlanTierra, Systech Water Resources, and Carollo Engineers. 2013. Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability (CV-SALTS): Initial Concept Model (ICM) Technical Services. Final Report prepared for the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Authority. Tasks 7 and 8 – Salt and Nitrate Analysis for the Central Valley Floor and a Focused Analysis of Modesto and Kings Subregions. December.



Larry Walker Associates and Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers. 2016. Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-term Sustainability (CV-SALTS). Region 5: Updated Groundwater Quality Analysis and High Resolution Mapping for Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan. June.

Larry Walker Associates. 2012. Memorandum: Technical Evaluation of a Variance Policy and

Interim Salinity Program for the Central Valley Region. December. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/variances/index. shtml>.

————. 2016a. Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan Antidegradation Analysis.

October.

————. 2016b. Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan Economic Analysis. October.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases Fact Sheet.

Prepared by Air Quality and Atmospheric Change National Technology Development Team. Portland, OR. February. Available at: <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_045134.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2016.

Page, R.W. 1986. Geology of the fresh ground-water basin of the Central Valley, California,

with texture maps and sections. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-C. Washington, D.C. Available at: <https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1401C>.

Sacramento River Watershed Program. 2006. A Roadmap to Watershed Management,

Sacramento River Basin Chapter. Available:<http://www.sacriver.org/aboutwatershed/roadmap>. Accessed July 18, 2016.

Sholes, D.A. 2006. History, Lithology, and Groundwater Conditions in the Tulare Lake Basin.

Presentation to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, September 21, 2006. Available at <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/about_us/tlb_hydrogeology.pdf>. Accessed on July 14, 2016.

Starr Consulting, Palencia Consulting Engineers, and Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2015.

Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2015 Update Report. December. Available at: <https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/documents/SRWSS2015Update_FinalConsolida tedReducedSize.pdf>.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2004. Turbidity Fact Sheet. Turbidity Fact Sheet, FS-

3.1.5.0(Turb). in: The Clean Water Team Guidance Compendium for Watershed Monitoring and Assessment, Version 2.0. Division of Water Quality, California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. Available at:



<http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/cwt_guidance.shtml>.

————. 2005. Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California. Sacramento, CA. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/state_implementation_policy/>.

————. 2015. 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) – Statewide. Approved by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency on July 30, 2015. Available at: <http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml>. Accessed on August 3, 2016.

———. 2016. In the Matter of Review of Waste Discharge Requirements General Order No.

R5-2012-0116 for Growers Within the Eastern San Joaquin River Watershed that are Members of the Third-Party Group Issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Proposed Draft Order. Available at: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality/docs/a2239/a2239_pro posed_order.pdf>. Accessed on August 10, 2016.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water

Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. Office of Water. March. Available at: <https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf>.

———. 2004. Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA 816-F-04-030. Office of

Water. June. Available at: <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 04/documents/epa816f04030.pdf>. Accessed on August 6, 2016.

University of California. 2016. Website: Nitrous Oxide Emissions. Division of Agriculture and

Natural Resources, Solution Center for Nutrient Management. Available at: <http://ucanr.edu/sites/Nutrient_Management_Solutions/stateofscience/Nitrous_Oxide I n_focus/#N2O%20by the numbers>. Accessed on November 11, 2016.

Water Education Foundation. 2015. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: A

Handbook to Understanding and Implementing the Law. Available at: <http://www.watereducation.org/sites/main/files/file- attachments/groundwatermgthandbook_oct2015.pdf>. Accessed on August 8, 2016.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Local Climate Data Summaries for the Western U.S.

(2008). Available at: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/local-climate-data/>. Accessed on September 22, 2016.

Salt and Nitrate Management Plan Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

Robertson-Bryan, Inc./CDM Smith Substitute Environmental Documentation A-2

Note: Appendices removed to provide smaller document to provide comments on. Applicable comments on the appendices are applied by reference.