cv-salts executive committee meeting 2017 cv-salts mee… · cv-salts committee rosters voters...

One or more Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board members may attend.

CV-SALTS Executive Committee MeetingThursday, November 9, 2017 – 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM - Sunset Maple Room

Sacramento Regional Sanitation District 10060 Goethe Rd, Sacramento 95827

Teleconference (641) 715-3580 Code: 279295#

Go-To-Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/541797341

Posted 10-31-17 – Revised 11-07-17

1) Welcome and Introductions - Chair

a) Committee Roll Call and Membership Roster -10 mins

2) Basin Plan Amendment Language – Jeanne Chilcott and Tess Dunham (2 hrs. 15 mins)

Nitrate Control Program – Key Issues to Resolve

Permitting Pathway A – Pathway B

Policies/Guidance to Support the Program for Control and Permitting of Nitrate Dischargesto Groundwater in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins and in the Tulare Lake Basin

Management Zone Implementation Plans/Alternative Compliance Projects Exceptions Policy Variance Policy

o Key Comments Received on Exceptions & Variance Policies

11:30 am to 1:00 pm - Lunch on Your Own

3) Secondary MCLs Recommended Proposal/Alternatives – Tim Moore, Jeanne Chilcott andWater Purveyors (45 mins)

4) Basin Plan Amendment Language – Richard Meyerhoff and Jeanne Chilcott (2 hrs.)

Salinity Control Program

Policies/Guidance to Support the Salinity Strategy Drought/Conservation/Offsets

5) Administrative Updates – Daniel Cozad (15 mins.)

Revised Grant Scope of Work – Approval

Public Education and Outreach - Update

6) Review Meeting Schedule/Location

Proposed 2018 Meeting Schedule

Admin Meeting – December 14th – 1:00-2:30

CV-SALTS meetings are held in compliance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act set forth in Government Code sections 11120-11132(§ 11121(d). The public is entitled to have access to the records of the body which are posted at http://www.cvsalinity.org

PACKAGE

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/541797341

http://www.cvsalinity.org/

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Voters Category/Stakeholder Group Name 12-Jan 2-Feb 16-Mar 20-Apr 15-Jun 16-Aug 17-Aug 11-Oct 12-Oct 9-Nov

1 Central Valley Water Board Pamela Creedon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Central Valley Water Board Jeanne Chilcott ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 State Water Resources Control Bd. Darrin Polhemus ✔3 Department of Water Resources Jose FariaAlt Department of Water Resources4 US Bureau of Reclamation Ellwood Raley ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Environmental Justice Laurel Firestone ✔6 Environmental Water Quality TBD

CV Salinity Coalition1 So. San Joaquin WQC Casey Creamer ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 City of Stockton Robert Granberg ✔ ✔ ✔3 California Cotton Growers Chris McGlothlin ✔4 City of Fresno Rosa Lau-Staggs ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 CA Leaque of Food Processors Trudi HughesAlt CA Leaque of Food Processors Rob Neenan ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 NCWA/SVWQC Bruce Houdesheldt ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔7 City of Tracy Erich DelmasAlt City of Tracy Dale Klever8 Sacramento Regional CSD Lysa Voight ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Sacramento Regional CSD Sam Safi

9 San Joaquin Tributaries Authority Dennis Westcot

10 Valley Water Management Melissa Thorme ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Valley Water Management Jim Waldron ✔ ✔ ✔11 California Rice Commission Tim Johnson ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔12 City of Davis Josie Tellers ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔13 Tulare Lake Drainage/Storage District Mike Nordstrom ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔14 Western Plant Health Assoc. Renee Pinel ✔15 City of Vacaville Steve SawyerAlt City of Vacaville Tony Pirondini ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔16 Dairy Cares J.P. Cativiela ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔Alt Dairy Cares Paul Sousa17 Westlands Water District Jose GuiterrezAlt Westlands Water District Charlotte Gallock ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Comm. Chairs/Co-chairs 1 Chair Executive Committee Parry Klassen, ESJWQC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔2 Vice Chair Executive Committee Debbie Webster CVCWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Roger Reynolds, S Engr. ✔ ✔

Technical Advisory Committee Nigel Quinn, LBL ✔ ✔ ✔4 Public Education and Outreach Nicole Bell ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔5 Economic and Social Cost Committee David Cory, SJVDA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔6 Lower San Joaquin River Committee Karna Harrigfeld, SEWD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings - 2017Executive Committee Membership

3

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Committee Rosters

Last First Organization 12-Jan 2-Feb 16-Mar 20-Apr 15-Jun 16-Aug 17-Aug 11-Oct 12-Oct 9-Nov

Archibald Elaine CUWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ashby Karen LWA

Barclay Diane SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Brown Michelle RBI

Bryant Mike RBI

Carlo Penny Carollo Engineers ✔ ✔ ✔

Cady Mark CDFA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Claiborne Mike Leadership Counsel ✔

Clary Jennifer CWA ✔

Dickey John Plantierra ✔ ✔ ✔

Doduc Tam SWRCB

Dunham Tess Somach Simmons ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Escobar Juan DWR ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Fink Cody LANDIQ

Fuentes Robert Leadership Counsel

Garcia Rick CRC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Gonzalez Armando Occidental Oil & Gas

Gore Bob Gualco Group ✔ ✔

Gosling Doug

Grovhoug Tom LWA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Gudel Casey LANDIQ ✔

Horne Randy NAFTEX ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Johnson Michael LSJRC ✔ ✔

Kihara Annalisa SWRCB

Kimmelshue Joel LANDIQ

Kotin Adam Wine Institute ✔ ✔ ✔

Krachey Julie Apex ✔

Kretsinger Grabert Vicki LSCE ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Kubiak Rachel Western Plant Health Assoc.

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings -2017

PACKAGE

Last First Organization 12-Jan 2-Feb 16-Mar 20-Apr 15-Jun 16-Aug 17-Aug 11-Oct 12-Oct 9-Nov

Laputz Adam CVRWQCB ✔ ✔

Larson Bobbi CASA ✔ ✔ ✔

LeClaire Joe Daniel B. Stephens & Assoc

Liebersbach Debbie Turlock Irrig Dist ✔

Lilien Jonathan Chevron

Link Adam CASA

Littlejohn Anne CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Longley Karl CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Lovley Tim MacPherson Oil ✔ ✔

McGahan Joe SJVDA

McReynolds Scott ✔ ✔ ✔

Meeks Glenn CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Meyerhoff Richard GEI Consultants ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Moore Tim Risk-Sciences ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Ores Debi CWC ✔ ✔

Peschel Paul KRCD

Plachta Walt CVRWQCB ✔ ✔

Pritchett Gregory Chevron

Pulupa Patrick CVRWQCB ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Pitcher Jennifer West. States Petroleum

Reedy Chris VWM ✔

Rempel Jenny CWC

Rivera Willie CIPA ✔ ✔ ✔

Rodgers Clay CVRWQCB ✔

Savage Chris Gallo

Schmidt Andrea

Schultz Paul CDM Smith ✔

Seyfried Scott SWRCB ✔ ✔ ✔

Seaton Phoebe LCJA ✔ ✔

Segal Daniel Chevron

Silva Megan Aera ✔

Thomas Bill KRCD ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Tillman Stephanie LANDIQ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Tristao Dennis J.G. Boswell ✔

Wackman Mike SJ County/Delta Water ✔ ✔

Zimmerman Christine IOPA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS:

Participant Names CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meetings -2017

PACKAGE

1

Nitrate Control Program

Key Issues to Resolve

November 9, 2017

Issue Comment/Question Additional Information

for Consideration

Executive Policy

Committee

Recommendation Determination of Assimilative Capacity for Path A Permittees

Should availability of assimilative capacity be measured in (1) Shallow Zone (?) (2) First Encountered

Groundwater (FEG) (i.e., underlying groundwater)(?)

If shallow zone, how is it defined? - Upper 10% of upper

zone, - Upper portion of upper

zone where domestic water supply wells exist

- Typical distribution of domestic wells in the basin

Is there a default for FEG (based on available GW data) with option to use shallow if permittee requests use of shallow and makes a demonstration that is consistent with definition?

See LSCE figures and explanation at Executive Policy Committee Meeting

Determining Potential Use of Assimilative Capacity over a 20-year period

How is such a calculation made? Is it a complex model or simple spreadsheet calculation? Is it used only as an estimation for categorizing

PACKAGE

2


for Consideration

Executive Policy

Committee

Recommendation the discharge under Path A but not necessarily to determine ongoing compliance as it would be too difficult to track and discern?

Evaluation of impacts to down-gradient areas

Is this a general evaluation at the time of application to determine if the Management Zone boundary is appropriate? If Management Zone boundary is appropriate, are activities and actions moving forward for implementation of the Management Zone then based on actions within the Zone?

Definition for Zone of Contribution over 20 year planning horizon

How is it defined? How is it determined?

Recycled Water Comment: Need to be sure to avoid creating disincentives for recycled water projects. A blanket exception for recycled water projects should be considered; and/or procedures for processing projects with de minimis impacts should be streamlined.

Is a blanket exception even legally feasible? How does the Regional Board implement Nitrate Control Program requirements for recycled water projects that are permitted under the State’s General Order?

Issuance of new WDRs in Priority II or non-prioritized groundwater basins

Comment: Management zone may not be in development, which leaves only Path A for new/amended WDRs in these areas.

Considerations: 1) Regional Board efficiency

of resources; 2) Difference in equities

between existing

PACKAGE

3


for Consideration

Executive Policy

Committee

Recommendation Accordingly, should new dischargers or expanding dischargers be subject to Nitrate Control Program requirements in advance of existing dischargers in same area? Should Nitrate Control Program requirements only apply to new or expanded discharges of Nitrate?

dischargers and new dischargers;

3) By default, means that new dischargers must meet more stringent/conservative requirements.

Special Permitting Procedures for those Outside the Valley Floor

Comment: Need to add special permitting procedures for permittees outside of the valley floor.

What would these special permitting procedures consist of? Do we limit application of the Nitrate Control Program to the valley floor, or identified groundwater basins/sub-basins (i.e., those basins/sub-basins were relevant)?

Timing of Requirements

Comment: Time allowances for MZs to form and perform required functions is overly optimistic. Can there be longer lead times for implementing Early Action Plans (currently needs to start in 60 days)?

Triggers Should they be referred to as “action levels” rather than triggers?

Non-Prioritized Basins/Subbasins

Rather than including list in the Basin Plan, should it be an appendix? (List may include an estimated 150 GW basins)

PACKAGE

6 November 2017 IV-39.00 IMPLEMENTATION

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act states that basin plans consist of beneficial uses, water quality

objectives and a program of implementation for achieving their water quality objectives [Water Code Section

13050(j)]. The implementation program shall include, but not be limited to:

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 (Water Code

Section 13242).

In addition, State law requires that basin plans indicate estimates of the total cost and identify potential sources of

funding of any agricultural water quality control program prior to its implementation. (Water Code Section 13141).

This chapter of the Basin Plan responds to all but the surveillance requirement. That is described in Chapter V.

This chapter is organized as follows: The first section contains a general description of water quality concerns.

These are organized by discharger type (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, mines, etc.). The second section lists

programs, plans and policies which should result in the achievement of most of the water quality objectives in this

plan. This section includes descriptions of State Water Board policies, statewide plans, statewide programs dealing

with specific waste discharge problems (e.g., underground tanks, storm water, solid waste disposal sites, etc.),

memoranda of understanding, management agency agreements, memoranda of agreement, Regional Water Board

policies, a listing of Regional Water Board prohibition areas, and Regional Water Board guidelines addressing

specific water quality problems. The third section contains recommendations for appropriate action by entities other

than the Regional Water Board. The fourth section describes how; within the framework of the programs, plans and

policies discussed in the second section; the Regional Water Board integrates water quality control activities into a

continuing planning process. The fifth section identifies the current actions and the time schedule for future actions

of the Regional Water Board to achieve compliance with water quality objectives where the programs, plans and

policies in the second section are not adequate. The last section lists the estimated costs and funding sources for

agricultural water quality control programs that are implemented by the Regional Water Board.

Control Action Considerations of the Central Valley Regional Water Board

Policies and Plans

The following are the Regional Water Board’s policies to protect water quality in the Central Valley:

. . . .

14. Limited-Term Exceptions from Basin Plan Provisions and Water Quality Objectives for Groundwater and for

non-NPDES Dischargers to Surface Waters

Pursuant to Water Code sections 13050 and 13240 et seq., the Regional Water Board has adopted beneficial use

designations and water quality objectives that apply to surface and ground waters in the basins covered by this

Basin Plan as well as programs of implementation. The Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term

Sustainability (CV-SALTS) is a stakeholder effort that developed a comprehensive salt and nitrate management

plan (SNMP) that documents salt and nitrate conditions in surface and ground water in the Central Valley and

identifies implementation measures and monitoring strategies to ensure environmental and economic

sustainability. The SNMP identifies the need for a prioritized, long-term management strategy to address the

need for providing safe drinking water while moving toward balanced loading and managed restoration where

reasonable, practicable and feasible. The Regional Water Board finds that it is reasonable to grant exceptions to

PACKAGE


the discharge requirements related to the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity, nitrate and

boron for non-NPDES dischargers to surface water, and for discharges to groundwater if the permittee is

actively participating in the implementation of the long-term Salt and Nitrate Control Programs and it is

infeasible, impracticable or unreasonable to prohibit the discharge or it is preferable to have a discharger and/or

area specific and time-limited exception rather than a more lasting water quality standard revision.

Exception to Discharge Requirements Related to the Implementation of Water Quality Objectives for Salinity,

Nitrate and Boron

1. Any persona subject to waste discharge requirements and/or conditional waivers issued pursuant to Water

Code 13269 that are not also NPDES permits may apply to the Regional Water Board for an exception to

discharge requirements from the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity, nitrate and/or

boron. Recognized third party groups may apply on behalf of its members or for multiple dischargers under

a management zone. The exception may apply to the issuance of effluent limitations and/or groundwater

limitations that implement water quality objectives for salinity, nitrate and/or boron in groundwater, or to

effluent limitations and/or surface water limitations that implement water quality objectives for salinity,

nitrate and/or boron in surface water. For the purposes of this Program, salinity and its constituents include,

and are limited to, the following: electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate and sodium.

Nitrate includes total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) and total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). The application for such

an exception(s) shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in corresponding sections

for salinity/boron and nitrate below (sections ### and ###, respectively).

2. An exception to discharge requirements from the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity,

nitrate and/or boron imposed as limitations in either waste discharge requirements and/or conditional

waivers that are not also NPDES permits shall be set for a term not to exceed 50 years. Terms for

exceptions shall generally not exceed 10 years, however, the Regional Water board shall have the discretion

to adopt an exception for longer than 10 years if the applicant(s) can demonstrate that it is necessary to

further the management goals of the Salt or Nitrate Control Programs. The Regional Water Board has the

authority to reauthorize (renew) an exception for one or more additional terms, the length of which shall be

determined by the Regional Water Board but shall not exceed 50 years. The authorization of an exception, or

any reauthorization, shall require approval of the Central Valley Water Board, after public notice and

hearing.

3. The Regional Board will require those discharger(s) with authorized exceptions, to prepare a status report

every 5 years summarizing compliance with the terms and conditions of the exception. The status reports

may be presented individually for individual exceptions or collectively for multiple exceptions granted to

multiple dischargers. The Regional Board will conducts its review of exceptions in a public hearing. The

Regional Board may terminate an exception when the applicant(s) are not complying with the terms and

conditions that are part of the exception. Any rescission of an exception may only occur after notice and

hearing.

4. Exceptions are intended to facilitate long-term attainment of water quality standards under the Salt and/or

Nitrate Control Program or to provide the time needed to revise an inappropriate water quality standard. The

Regional Water Board will consider granting an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives

for salinity, nitrate or boron under this Program if the applicant is actively participating in the Salt and/or

Nitrate Control Programs as indicated by the letter required under #######., below, and meets the specific

requirements for boron indicated in #####.

5. The Regional Water Board will set interim performance-based requirements when the exception is

authorized.

6. Requirements associated with seeking and approving an exception shall include, but are not limited to: eligibility criteria, mitigation responsibilities, monitoring/reporting obligations, and expectations relevant to implementing the SNMP Management Goals

a The term “person” includes, but is not limited to, “any city, county, district, the state, and the United States, to the extent authorized by federal law.” (Wat. Code, § 13050, subd. (c).)

PACKAGE


7. As a condition for reauthorizing/renewing an exception, the Regional Board will require those discharger(s)

with authorized exceptions terms greater than ten years to prepare and submit a report every ten years that

reassesses Best Management Practices (BMPs) and surveys available treatment technologies to determine if

feasible, practicable and reasonable compliance options have become available. The Regional Board will

include review of BMPs and available treatment technologies when conducting the public hearing to review

compliance as described in paragraph 3 above. Following review of the BMPs and available treatment

technologies, the Regional Board may revise requirements under the authorized exception..

8. Where exceptions are sought in order to provide time to develop and approve a more appropriate water

quality standard (uses and/or objectives), there must be a well-defined work plan (including a schedule of

milestones) and a commitment by dischargers to provide the resources needed to complete the proposed

process.

9. Where existing water quality standards are unlikely to change, dischargers must explain how the proposed

exception facilitates the larger long-term salt and/or nitrate strategy designed to ultimately attain those

standards while in the interim allocating available resources to address more urgent water quality priorities

such as provision of safe drinking water, where applicable.

10. Upon receipt of an application for an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for any

constituent under this Program, the Regional Water Board shall determine that the exception application is

complete, or specify in writing any additional relevant information, which is deemed necessary to make a

determination on the exception request. Failure of an applicant to submit any additional relevant information

requested by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer within the applicable time period may result in the

denial of the exception application.

11. Within a reasonable time period after determining that the exception application is complete, the Regional

Water Board shall provide notice, request comment, and schedule and hold a public hearing on the

application within a timely manner. The notice and hearing requirements shall comply with those set forth in

Water Code section 13167.5. The Board will approve an exception by amending applicable waste discharge

requirements and/or conditional waiver requirements.

Exception Application Provisions Specific to Salinity

1. When granting an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity or boron under

this Program, the Regional Water Board shall consider including an interim performance-based effluent

limitation and/or groundwater limitation that provides reasonable protection of the groundwater or the

receiving water, where appropriate. When establishing such a limitation, the Regional Water Board shall

take into consideration increases in salinity concentrations due to drought, water conservation, and/or water

recycling efforts that may occur during the term of the exception granted.

2. When granting an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity under this

Program, the Regional Water Board shall require the discharger to demonstrate active participation the

Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach as specified under the Salinity Control Program.

3. A person seeking consideration of drought, water conservation and water recycling as part of an exception to

the implementation of water quality objectives for salinity under this Program must include the following in

the application to the Regional Board:

a. A description of any drought impacts, irrigation, water conservation and/or water recycling efforts that

may be causing or cause the concentration of salinity to increase in the effluent, discharges to receiving

waters, or in receiving waters;

Exception Application Requirements Specific to Nitrate

PACKAGE


1. Exceptions for nitrate will not be considered unless an adequate supply of clean, safe, reliable and

affordable drinking water is available for those who have been adversely affected by the non-compliant

discharge(s).

2. An applicant seeking an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for nitrate under this

Program must submit an application to the Regional Water Board. The applicant’s request shall include the

following:

a. An explanation/justification as to why the exception is necessary, and why the discharger is unable

to ensure consistent compliance with existing effluent and/or groundwater/surface water

limitations associated with nitrate at this time;

b. A description of the alternative compliance project(s), Early Action Plan (EAP) or other

implementation measures that the applicant will implement or participate in, consistent with the

Nitrate Permitting Strategy of this Basin Plan for individual or collective groups of dischargers.

c. Copies of any documents prepared and certified by another state or local agency pursuant to

Public Resources Code section 21080 et seq.; or, such documents as are necessary for the

Regional Water Board to make its decision in compliance with Public Resources Code section

21080 et seq.

d. A work plan to provide an interim and permanent water supply for any person living in the area

adversely affected by the discharge under the requested nitrate exception. The water supply work

plan shall include a schedule of milestones and a description of financial commitments to assure

completion of the interim and permanent water supply. Performance bonds may be required to

assure timely implementation.

e. Documentation of the applicant’s active participation in CV-SALTS as indicated by a letter of

support from CV-SALTS.

f. A detailed plan of how the applicant will continue to participate in CV-SALTS and how the

proposed implementation measures will further the management goals of the SNMPs.

Exception Application Provisions Specific to Boron

1. When granting an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for boron under this Program

the Regional Water Board shall require the discharger to prepare and implement a Boron Reduction Study

Work Plan, or a boron-based watershed management plan. A Boron Reduction Study Work Plan shall at a

minimum include the following:

a. Data on current influent and effluent boron concentrations;

b. Identification of known boron sources;

c. Description of current plans to reduce/eliminate known boron sources;

d. Preliminary identification of other potential sources;

e. A proposed schedule for evaluating sources; and

f. A proposed schedule for identifying and evaluating potential reduction, elimination, and prevention

methods.

A boron-based watershed management plan shall at a minimum include the following:

a. A discussion of the physical conditions that affect surface water or groundwater in the management plan

area, including land use maps, identification of potential sources of boron, baseline inventory of

identified existing management practices in use, and a summary of available surface and/or groundwater

quality data;

b. A management plan strategy that includes a description of current management practices being used to

reduce or control known boron sources;

c. Monitoring methods;

d. Data evaluation; and,

e. A schedule for reporting management plan progress.

PACKAGE


6. When granting an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives under this Program, the

Regional Water Board will include a requirement to participate in CV-SALTS and contribute to the

development and implementation of the SNMPs in accordance with the plan submitted under paragraph 8.f,

below.

7. The granting of an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for boron under this Program

by the Regional Water Board is a discretionary action subject to the requirements of the California

Environmental Quality Act. As such, the Regional Water Board may require the applicant for the exception

to prepare such documents as are necessary so that the Regional Water Board can ensure that its action

complies with the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act or the Regional Water

Board may use any such documents that have been prepared and certified by another state or local agency

that address the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and the granting of an exception

from implementation of water quality objectives for boron in groundwater and/or surface water.

8. A person seeking an exception to the implementation of water quality objectives for boron under this

Program must submit an application to the Regional Water Board. The person’s request shall include the

following:

a. An explanation/justification as to why the exception is necessary, and why the discharger is unable to

ensure consistent compliance with existing effluent and/or groundwater/surface water limitations

associated with boron constituents at this time;

b. A description of salinity reduction/elimination measures that the discharger has undertaken as of the date

of application, or a description of a boron-based watershed management plan and progress of its

implementation;

c. A description of any drought impacts, irrigation, water conservation and/or water recycling efforts that

may be causing or cause the concentration of boron to increase in the effluent, discharges to receiving

waters, or in receiving waters;

c. Copies of any documents prepared and certified by another state or local agency pursuant to Public

Resources Code section 21080 et seq.; or, such documents as are necessary for the Regional Water Board

to make its decision in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21080 et seq.

d. Documentation of the applicant’s active participation in the long-term salinity management strategy as

indicated by a letter of support from CV-SALTS.

e. A detailed plan of how the applicant will continue to participate in CV-SALTS and how the applicant

will contribute to the development and implementation of the SNMPs.

PACKAGE


IV. IMPLEMENTATION

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act states that basin plans consist of beneficial uses, water quality

objectives and a program of implementation for achieving their water quality objectives [Water Code Section

13050(j)]. The implementation program shall include, but not be limited to:

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 (Water Code

Section 13242).

In addition, State law requires that basin plans indicate estimates of the total cost and identify potential sources of

funding of any agricultural water quality control program prior to its implementation. (Water Code Section 13141).

This chapter of the Basin Plan responds to all but the surveillance requirement. That is described in Chapter V.

This chapter is organized as follows: The first section contains a general description of water quality concerns.

These are organized by discharger type (e.g., agriculture, silviculture, mines, etc.). The second section lists

programs, plans and policies which should result in the achievement of most of the water quality objectives in this

plan. This section includes descriptions of State Water Board policies, statewide plans, statewide programs dealing

with specific waste discharge problems (e.g., underground tanks, storm water, solid waste disposal sites, etc.),

memoranda of understanding, management agency agreements, memoranda of agreement, Regional Water Board

policies, a listing of Regional Water Board prohibition areas, and Regional Water Board guidelines addressing

specific water quality problems. The third section contains recommendations for appropriate action by entities other

than the Regional Water Board. The fourth section describes how; within the framework of the programs, plans and

policies discussed in the second section; the Regional Water Board integrates water quality control activities into a

continuing planning process. The fifth section identifies the current actions and the time schedule for future actions

of the Regional Water Board to achieve compliance with water quality objectives where the programs, plans and

policies in the second section are not adequate. The last section lists the estimated costs and funding sources for

agricultural water quality control programs that are implemented by the Regional Water Board.

Control Action Considerations of the Central Valley Regional Water Board

Policies and Plans

The following are the Regional Water Board’s policies to protect water quality in the Central Valley:

. . . .

13. Variance Policy for Surface Waters

As part of its state water quality standards program, states have the discretion to include variance policies. (40

C.F.R., §131.13.) This policy provides the Regional Water Board with the authority to grant a variance from

application of water quality standards under certain circumstances.

I. Variances from Surface Water Quality Standards for Point Source Dischargers

A. A permit applicant or permittee subject to an NPDES permit may apply to the Regional Water Board

for a variance from a surface water quality standard for a specific constituent(s), as long as the constituent

is not a priority toxic pollutant identified in 40 C.F.R., §131.38(b)(1). A permit applicant or permittee may

not apply to the Regional Water Board for a variance from a surface water quality standard for temperature.

PACKAGE


The application for such a variance shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements specified in

section II of this Policy. The Central Valley Water Board may adopt variance programs that provide

streamlined approval procedures for multiple dischargers that share the same challenges in achieving their

water quality based effluent limitation(s) (WQBELs) for the same pollutant(s). The Variance Program for

Salinity Water Quality Standards in section III, below, is a multiple discharger variance program.

Permittees that qualify for the Variance Program for Salinity Water Quality Standards by meeting the

criteria in section III.A. may submit a salinity variance application in accordance with the requirements

specified in section III of this Policy.

B. The Regional Water Board may not grant a variance if:

(1) Water quality standards addressed by the variance will be achieved by implementing technology-

based effluent limitations required under sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act, or

(2) The variance would likely jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species under

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of

such species’ critical habitat.

C. The Regional Water Board may approve all or part of a requested variance, or modify and approve a

requested variance, if the permit applicant demonstrates a variance is appropriate based on at least one of

the six following factors:

(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the surface water quality

standard; or

(2) Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of

the surface water quality standard, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the

discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating state water conservation

requirements to enable surface water quality standards to be met; or

(3) Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the surface water

quality standard and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct

than to leave in place; or

(4) Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the

surface water quality standard, and it is not feasible to restore the waterbody to its original

condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the

surface water quality standard; or

(5) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the waterbody, such as the lack of a proper

substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality preclude

attainment of aquatic life protection of surface water quality standards; or

(6) Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Clean Water Act

would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.

D. In making a determination on a variance application that is based on factor (3) in paragraph C above,

the Regional Water Board may consider the following:

(1) Information on the type and magnitude of adverse or beneficial environmental impacts, including

the net impact on the receiving water, resulting from the proposed methodologies capable of

attaining the adopted or proposed WQBEL.

(2) Other relevant information requested by the Regional Water Board or supplied by the applicant or

the public.

E. In making a determination on a variance application that is based on factor (6) in paragraph C. above,

the Regional Water Board may consider the following:

(1) The cost and cost-effectiveness of pollutant removal by implementing the methodology capable of

attaining the adopted or proposed WQBEL for the specific constituent(s) for which a variance is

being requested.

PACKAGE


(2) The reduction in concentrations and loadings of the pollutant(s) in question that is attainable by

source control and pollution prevention efforts as compared to the reduction attainable by use of

the methodology capable of attaining the adopted or proposed WQBEL.

(3) The overall impact of attaining the adopted or proposed WQBEL and implementing the

methodologies capable of attaining the adopted or proposed WQBEL.

(4) The technical feasibility of installing or operating any of the available methodologies capable of

attaining the WQBEL for which a variance is sought.

(5) Other relevant information requested by the Regional Water Board or supplied by the applicant or

the public.

F. A determination to grant or deny a requested variance shall be made in accordance with the procedures

specified in section II, below. Procedures specified in section III, below, will be used for applicants that

qualify for the Variance Program for Salinity Water Quality Standards.

G. A variance applies only to the permit applicant requesting the variance and only to the constituent(s)

specified in the variance application.

H. A variance or any renewal thereof shall be for a time as short as feasible and shall not be granted for a

term greater than ten years.

I. Neither the filing of a variance application nor the granting of a variance shall be grounds for the

staying or dismissing of, or a defense in, a pending enforcement action. A variance shall be prospective

only from the date the variance becomes effective.

J. A variance shall conform to the requirements of the State Water Board’s Antidegradation Policy (State

Water Board Resolution 68-16).

II. Variance Application Requirements and Processes

A. An application for a variance from a surface water quality standard for a specific constituent(s) subject

to this Policy may be submitted at any time after the permittee determines that it is unable to meet a

WQBEL or proposed WQBEL based on a surface water quality standard, and/or an adopted wasteload

allocation. The variance application may be submitted with the renewal application (i.e., report of waste

discharge) for a NPDES permit. If the permittee is seeking to obtain a variance after a WQBEL has been

adopted into a NPDES permit, the WQBEL shall remain in effect until such time that the Regional Water

Board makes a determination on the variance application.

B. The granting of a variance by the Regional Water Board is a discretionary action subject to the

requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. As such, the Regional Water Board may require

the variance applicant to prepare such documents as are necessary so that the Regional Water Board can

ensure that its action complies with the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act,

or the Regional Water Board may use any such documents that have been prepared and certified by another

state or local agency that address the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and the

granting of a variance.

C. A complete variance application must contain the following:

(1) Identification of the specific constituent(s) and water quality standard(s) for which a variance is

sought;

(2) Identification of the receiving surface water, and any available information with respect to

receiving water quality and downstream beneficial uses for the specific constituent;

(3) Identification of the WQBEL(s) that is being considered for adoption, or has been adopted in the

NPDES permit;

(4) List of methods for removing or reducing the concentrations and loadings of the pollutants with an

assessment of technical effectiveness and the costs and cost effectiveness of these methods. At a

minimum, and to the extent feasible, the methods must include source control measures, pollution

PACKAGE


prevention measures, facility upgrades and end-of-pipe treatment technology. From this list, the

applicant must identify the method(s) that will consistently attain the WQBELs and provide a

detailed discussion of such methodologies;

(5) Documentation of at least one of the following over the next ten years. Documentation that covers

less than ten years will limit the maximum term that the Regional Water Board can consider for

the variance:

(i) That naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the surface water

quality standard or

(ii) That natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the

attainment of the surface water quality standard, unless these conditions may be compensated

for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges to enable surface water quality

standards to be met; or

(iii) That human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the surface

water quality standard from which the WQBEL is based, and it is not feasible to remedy the

conditions or sources of pollution; or

(iv) That dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of

the surface water quality standard from which the WQBEL is based, and it is not feasible to

restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way that

would result in attainment of the surface water quality standard; or

(v) Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a

proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality,

preclude attainment of aquatic life protection of surface water quality standards from which

the WQBEL is based; or

(vi) That installation and operation of each of the available methodologies capable of attaining the

WQBEL would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.

(6) Documentation that the permittee has reduced, or is in the process of reducing, to the maximum

extent practicable, the discharge of the pollutant(s) for which a variance is sought through

implementation of local pretreatment, source control, and pollution prevention efforts; and,

(7) A detailed discussion of a proposed interim discharge limitation(s) that represents the highest level

of treatment that the permittee can consistently achieve during the term of the variance. Such

discussion shall also identify and discuss any drought, water conservation, and/or water recycling

efforts that may cause certain constituents in the effluent to increase, or efforts that will cause

certain constituents in the effluent to decrease with a sufficient amount of certainty. When the

permittee proposes an interim discharge limitation(s) that is higher than the current level of the

constituent(s) in the effluent due to the need to account for drought, water conservation or water

recycling efforts, the permittee must provide appropriate information to show that the increase in

the level for the proposed interim discharge limitation(s) will not adversely affect beneficial uses,

is consistent with state and federal antidegradation policies (State Water Board Resolution No. 68-

16 and 40 C.F.R., § 131.12.), and is consistent with anti-backsliding provisions specified in

section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act. If the permittee indicates that certain constituents in the

effluent are likely to decrease during the term of the variance due to recycling efforts or

management measures, then the proposed interim discharge limitation(s) shall account for such

decreases.

(8) Copies of any documents prepared and certified by another state or local agency pursuant to

Public Resources Code section 21080 et seq.; or, such documents as are necessary for the

Regional Water Board to make its decision in compliance with Public Resources Code section

21080 et seq.

D. Within 60 days of the receipt of a variance application, the Regional Water Board shall determine that

the variance application is complete, or specify in writing any additional relevant information, which is

deemed necessary to make a determination on the variance request. Such additional information shall be

submitted by the applicant within a time period agreed upon by the applicant and the Regional Water Board

Executive Officer. Failure of an applicant to submit any additional relevant information requested by the

Regional Water Board Executive Officer within the agreed upon time period may result in the denial of the

variance application.

PACKAGE


E. The Regional Water Board shall provide a copy of the variance application to USEPA Region 9 within

30 days of finding that the variance application is complete.

F. Within a reasonable time period after finding that the variance application is complete, the Regional

Water Board shall provide public notice, request comment, and schedule and hold a public hearing on the

variance application. When the variance application is submitted with the NPDES permit renewal

application (i.e., report of waste discharge), the notice, request for comment and public hearing requirement

on the variance application may be conducted in conjunction with the Regional Water Board’s process for

the renewal of the NPDES permit.

G. The Regional Water Board may approve the variance, either as requested, or as modified by the

Regional Water Board. The Regional Water Board may take action to approve a variance and renew and/or

modify an existing NPDES permit as part of the same Board meeting. The permit shall contain all

conditions needed to implement the variance, including, at a minimum, all of the following:

(1) An interim effluent limitation for the constituent(s) for which the variance is sought. The interim

effluent limitation(s) must be consistent with the current level of the constituent(s) in the effluent

and may be lower based on anticipated improvement in effluent quality. The Regional Water

Board may consider granting an interim effluent limitation(s) that is higher than the current level if

the permittee has demonstrated that drought, water conservation, and/or water recycling efforts

will cause the quality of the effluent to be higher than the current level and that the higher interim

effluent limitation will not adversely affect beneficial uses. When the duration of the variance is

shorter than the duration of the permit, compliance with effluent limitations sufficient to meet the

water quality criterion upon the expiration of the variance shall be required;

(2) A requirement to prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan pursuant to Water Code

section 13263.3 to address the constituent(s) for which the variance is sought;

(3) Any additional monitoring that is determined to be necessary by the Regional Water Board to

evaluate the effects on the receiving water body of the variance from water quality standards;

(4) A provision allowing the Regional Water Board to reopen and modify the permit based on any

revision to the variance made by the Regional Water Board during the next revision of the water

quality standards or by EPA upon review of the variance; and

(5) Other conditions that the Regional Water Board determines to be necessary to implement the

terms of the variance.

H. The variance, as adopted by the Regional Water Board in section G, is not in effect until it is approved

by U.S. EPA.

I. Permit limitations for a constituent(s) contained in the applicant’s permit that are in effect at the time

of the variance application shall remain in effect during the consideration of a variance application for that

particular constituent(s).

J. The permittee may request a renewal of a variance in accordance with the provisions contained in

paragraphs A, B and C and this section. For variances with terms greater than the term of the permit, an

application for renewal of the variance may be submitted with the renewal application for the NPDES

permit in order to have the term of the variance begin concurrent with the term of the permit. The renewal

application shall also contain information concerning its compliance with the conditions incorporated into

its permit as part of the original variance and shall include information to explain why a renewal of the

variance is necessary. As part of its renewal application, a permittee shall also identify all efforts the

permittee has made, and/or intends to make, towards meeting the standard(s). Renewal of a variance may

be denied if the permittee did not comply with any of the conditions of the original variance.

K. All variances and supporting information shall be submitted by the Regional Water Board to the U.S.

EPA Regional Administrator within 30 days of the date of the Regional Water Board’s final variance

decision for approval and shall include the following:

(1) The variance application and any additional information submitted to the Regional Water Board;

PACKAGE


(2) Any public notices, public comments, and records of any public hearings held in conjunction with

the request for the variance;

(3) The Regional Water Board’s final decision; and

(4) Any changes to NPDES permits to include the variance.

L. All variances shall be reviewed during the Regional Water Board’s triennial review process of this

Basin Plan. For variances with terms that are greater than the term of the permit, the Regional Water Board

may also review the variance upon consideration of the permit renewal.

III. Variance Program for Salinity Water Quality Standards

The State Water Board and the Regional Water Board recognize that salt is impacting beneficial uses in the

Central Valley and management of salinity in surface and ground waters is a major challenge for

dischargers. The Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) is a

stakeholder that developed a comprehensive salt and nitrate management plan (SNMP) that documents salt

and nitrate conditions in surface and ground water in the Central Valley, and identifies implementation

measures and monitoring strategies to ensure environmental and economic sustainability. The SNMP

recommends a long-term salinity management strategy that is phased over time. The first phase (Phase I)

consists of developing a Prioritization and Optimization Study for long-term salinity management which is

intended to be a feasibility study that identifies appropriate regional and sub-regional projects, including

location, routing and implementation and operations of salt management projects. Phase II will consist of

environmental permitting, obtaining funding, and engineering and design. Phase III would then consist of

construction of physical projects as identified in the previous phases. Because the salinity management

strategy is phased over time, there is a need for an interim salinity permitting approach to be implemented

during Phase 1 and while transitioning from Phase 1 to Phase II. The interim salinity permitting approach is

anticipated to require 15 years and will be re-evaluated prior to implementation of Phase II. Only

permittees that are participating in the Prioritization and Optimization Study may apply for a variance

under this Salinity Variance Program.

A. During the development of the Prioritization and Optimization Study, permittees who qualify may

apply for a variance from salinity water quality standards if they have or will have WQBELs for salinity

that they are unable to meet by submitting a salinity variance application. The Salinity Variance Program

as described specifically herein is for municipal and domestic 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 now faced with replacing the municipal water supply with a

better quality water or installing costly improvements, such as membrane filtration treatment technology,

such that widespread social and economic impacts are expected consistent with the justification provided

for the case study cities in the Staff Report for the 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, June 2014. Consistent with the planned development of the Prioritization and Optimization Study,

no salinity variance under this section shall be approved after [15 years from effective date of these

amendments]. For the purposes of the Salinity Variance Program, salinity water quality standards are

defined to only include water quality standards for the following constituents: electrical conductivity, total

dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate and sodium.

B. An application for a variance for a specific salinity water quality standard may be submitted at any

time after the permittee determines that it is unable to meet a WQBEL or proposed WQBEL based on a

salinity water quality standard. Preferably, the salinity variance application should be submitted with the

renewal application (i.e., report of waste discharge) for a NPDES permit. If the permittee is seeking to

obtain a variance after a WQBEL has been adopted into a NPDES permit, the WQBEL shall remain in

effect until such time that the Regional Water Board makes a determination on the variance application.

For dischargers that are participating in the same prioritization and optimization study, i.e. a study that

covers their watershed or their groundwater basin, the dischargers may submit a joint application as long as

PACKAGE


the joint application contains all the information identified in paragraph C with individual discharger

information provided for paragraphs C.7. through C.10.

C. An application for variance from WQBELs based on a salinity water quality standard must contain the

following:

(1) Identification of the salinity constituents for which the variance is sought;

(2) Identification of the receiving surface water, and any available information with respect to

receiving water quality and downstream beneficial uses for the specific constituent;

(3) Identification of the WQBEL that is being considered for adoption, or has been adopted in the

NPDES permit;

(4) A description of salinity reduction/elimination measures that have been undertaken as of the

application date, if any;

(5) A Salinity Reduction Study Work Plan, which at a minimum must include the following:

(i) Data on current influent and effluent salinity concentrations,

(ii) Identification of known salinity sources,

(iii) Description of current plans to reduce/eliminate known salinity sources,

(iv) Preliminary identification of other potential sources,

(v) A proposed schedule for evaluating sources,

(vi) A proposed schedule for identifying and evaluating potential reduction, elimination, and

prevention methods.

(6) An explanation of the basis for concluding that there are no readily available or cost-effective

methodologies available to consistently attain the WQBELs for salinity.

(7) A detailed discussion explaining why the permittee’s situation is similar to or comparable with the

case studies supporting the Salinity Variance Program identified in the Staff Report for the

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, June 2014.

(8) A detailed discussion of proposed interim discharge limitation(s) that represents the highest level

of treatment that the permittee can consistently achieve during the term of the variance. If the

permittee indicates that certain constituents in the effluent are likely to decrease during the term of

the variance due to efforts, then the proposed interim discharge limitation(s) shall account for such

decreases.

(9) Documentation of the applicant’s active participation in the development of the Prioritization and

Optimization Study.

(10) A detailed plan of how the applicant will continue to participate in development of the

Prioritization and Optimization Study.

D. After the receipt of a variance application for salinity, the Regional Water Board shall determine

whether the variance application is complete and whether the permittee qualifies for consideration of the

variance, or specify in writing any additional relevant information that is deemed necessary to make a

determination on the salinity variance request. Such additional information shall be submitted by the

applicant within a time period agreed upon by the applicant and the Regional Water Board Executive

Officer. Failure of an applicant to submit any additional relevant information requested by the Regional

Water Board Executive Officer within the time period specified by the Executive Officer may result in the

denial of the variance application for salinity.

E. After determining that the variance application for salinity is complete, the Regional Water Board shall

provide notice, request comment, and schedule and hold a public hearing on the variance application for

salinity. When the variance application is submitted with the NPDES permit renewal application (i.e.,

report of waste discharge), the notice, request for comment and public hearing requirement on the variance

application may be conducted in conjunction with the Regional Water Board’s process for the renewal of

the NPDES permit.

PACKAGE


F. The Regional Water Board may approve a salinity variance, either as requested, or as modified by the

Regional Water Board, after finding that the permittee qualifies for the salinity variance, the attainment of

the WQBEL is not feasible consistent with the demonstrations based on the case studies identified in the

Staff Report for the 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, June 2014, the

permittee has implemented or will implement feasible salinity reduction/elimination measures and the

permittee continues to participate in the development of the prioritization and optimization studies for long-

term salinity management. The Regional Water Board may take action to approve a variance and issue a

new, or reissue or modify an existing NPDES permit as part of the same Board meeting. The permit shall

contain all conditions needed to implement the variance, including, at a minimum, all of the following:

(1) The interim effluent limitation(s) that are determined to be attainable during the term of the

variance. When the duration of the variance is shorter than the duration of the permit, compliance

with effluent limitations sufficient to meet the water quality criterion upon the expiration of the

variance shall be required;

(2) A requirement to implement the Salinity Reduction Study Work Plan submitted with the variance

application as required by paragraph C.5, above;

(3) A requirement to participate in the development of the Prioritization and Optimization Study in

accordance with the plan required by paragraph C.10, above.

(4) Any additional monitoring that is determined to be necessary to evaluate the effects on the

receiving water body of the variance from water quality standards;

(5) A provision allowing the Regional Water Board to reopen and modify the permit based on any

revision to the variance made by the Regional Water Board during the next revision of the water

quality standards;

(6) Other conditions that the Regional Water Board determines to be necessary to implement the

terms of the variance.

G. Permit limitations for a substance contained in the applicant’s permit that are in effect at the time of the

variance application shall remain in effect during the consideration of the variance application for that

particular substance.

H. The permittee may request a renewal of a salinity variance in accordance with the provisions contained

in paragraphs B and C of this section. For variances with terms greater than the term of the permit, an

application for renewal of the salinity variance may be submitted with the renewal application for the

NPDES permit in order to have the term of the variance begin concurrent with the term of the permit. The

renewal application shall also contain information concerning its compliance with the conditions

incorporated into its permit as part of the original variance, and shall include information to explain why a

renewal of the variance is necessary. As part of its renewal application, a permittee shall also identify all

efforts the permittee has made, and/or intends to make, towards meeting the standard. Renewal of a

variance may be denied if the permittee did not comply with the conditions of the original variance.

I. All variances shall be reviewed during the Regional Water Board’s triennial review process of this

Basin Plan. For variances with terms that are greater than the term of the permit, the Regional Water Board

may also review the variance upon consideration of the permit renewal.

PACKAGE

Variance Policy Recommendations Key Comments Received

November 9, 2017

Recommendation Comment or Concern Notes

Extend Salinity Variance 15-yrs from Effective Date

Do not extend the variance timeline. Original sunset was to require dischargers to determine how to meet requirements in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers

Extend Application to cover all beneficial uses, not just

AGR

No comments

Require participation in P&O Study

No comments

Salinity Variances to be reviewed and revised based

on P&O Study Results

No comments

Allow Variances to be granted to single or multiple

dischargers

No comments Multiple discharger application would need to note characteristics of individual permittees for review/approval by USEPA

PACKAGE

Exceptions Policy Key Comments Received

November 9, 2017

SNMP Recommendation Incorporated Comment or Concern Notes

Delete June 2019 Sunset Provision No comment

Board Discretion to Adopt for more than 10-years

No comment Set term not to exceed 50-years with discretion for Board to renew. Both require public notice and hearing as does a rescission.

Status report every 5-years No comment

Include requirements for Nitrate (and potentially TIN and TKN)

No comment

Include ability to apply for Boron exception if appropriate documentation provided

No comment

Add needed assurance of provision of safe drinking water in GW areas impacted by

nitrate

No comment Requires consistency with nitrate permitting strategy and commitment by dischargers to provide the resources needed to complete the proposed activities

Add new provisions consistent with SNMP Management Goals

Should these provisions be duplicated within the Exceptions Policy or remain within the Salt and Nitrate Management Strategies

Currently text points to provisions within the Salt and Nitrate Management Strategies

Clarify that exceptions are to provide time needed to meet water quality standards or

revise an inappropriate standard

No comment

Applicants may be individual or collective dischargers

No comment

Not to be considered unless adequate safe, reliable, affordable drinking water available in area adversely affected by non-compliant

discharges (need detailed workplan and commitment)

No comment Lists general requirements and points to EAP and alternate compliance projects consistent with Nitrate Permitting Strategy

Periodically reassess BMPs and available treatment technologies

No comment Reviews required every 10-yrs

If a standard is being re-evaluated a detailed work plan with milestones and resource commitment must be provided

No comment

Where standards not being re-evaluated, document facilitation of larger long-term

strategies to attain standards.

No comment Requires documentation of participation in long-term Salt/Nitrate Management Strategy

n/a Automatic exception for recycled water projects

Inconsistent with Recycled Water Policy

n/a Is there a way to make exceptions automatic or do you need to separately apply

PACKAGE

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (SMCLs) Key Issues to Resolve

November 9, 2017

Issue Comment or Concern Recommendation

Mixing Zones

Point-of-compliance should not be the "nearest downstream water intake"

Clarify text to indicate that BPA requires evaluation of potential impacts on downstream water supply intakes but that this does not move the point-of-compliance beyond the end of any approved mixing zone.

Mixing Zones

Proposed BPA is not consistent with State Board's policy on Mixing Zones. Mixing zones should be as small as practicable; should not compromise the integrity of the entire waterbody; should not produce objectionable color, odor, taste or turbidity; should not dominate the receiving water body or overlap other mixing zones; should not be allowed at or near any drinking water intake.

Add text to Implementation Section stating that WDRs must be established in accordance with the SWRCB's Mixing Zone Policy for discharges where the SIP applies. Discuss adding text describing general principles for establishing mixing zones for other SMCLs not governed by the SIP.

Mixing Zones

Proposed BPA does not address the cumulative and collective impacts of multiple discharges to the same waterbody over time.

The cumulative and collective impacts of multiple discharges to the same water body over time are generally evaluated as part of the normal antidegradation analysis conducted when developing appropriate WDRs.

Averaging Period

"Application of appropriate long-term averaging periods" is not consistent with Title-22 which specifies that SMCL compliance be based on an "annual average."

Revise text to indicate that: 1) compliance with Table-A parameters should be based on an annual average; 2) for Table B parameters, discharges to surface water will also be based on an annual average and discharges to groundwater will be evaluated based on an appropriate long-term average established by the Regional Board.

Table A Parameters

Constituents identified in Table A do not belong in a Salt and Nitrate Management Plan.

SNMP required by Recycled Water Policy; Section 6-b-1-b of RWP address "other constituents."

California Toxics Rule

(CTR)

Effluent limits should not be expressed in the "dissolved form" due to the potential for metals to change state after discharge"

Revise text to clarify that the BPA for SMCLs does not supersede or modify other surface water objectives established by the CTR (e.g. copper, silver, zinc) or the methods of compliance specified in the CTR and the SIP. Federal regulations require effluent limits in NPDES permits for discharges to surface waters be expressed as Total Recoverable metal. BPA makes no change to this existing requirement.

Implementation Factors

Evaluation of anion-cation balance is excessively burdensome and subjective.

Consider deleting this factor; alternatively, revise text to clarify that evaluation of this factor is optional not mandatory.


Add: requirement to Consult with Division of Drinking Water re: assessment of downstream impacts.

No recommendation


Add: requirement to consider drinking water regulatory and human health information from EPA, DDW & OEHHA

No recommendation

PACKAGE

Issue Comment or Concern Recommendation


"Other environmental factors" is too vague; specify or delete.

Revised text to say: "Other environment factors: including but not limited to habitat preservation, support for REC1 uses, drought impacts and protection, and the need to encourage greater use of recycled water."


Add: "The existing processes to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the discharge of the pollutant through pretreatment, source control and/or pollution control."

Antidegradation policy already achieves the same outcome by requiring "waste discharge requirements which will result in best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance ill not occur and (b) the highest quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained." (Res. No. 68-16) No change recommended.


Add: "List of possible methods for removing or reducing the concentrations and loadings of the pollutants from the discharge, including the assessment of technical effectiveness and costs of these methods."

Proposed BPA already requires: "Economic factors including the practicality and feasibility of achieving compliance with the SMCLs at the point-of-discharge…" Suggested language appears to be redundant. No change recommended.

Monitoring

Must include a long-term monitoring program sufficient to evaluate whether downstream degradation is occurring for SMCLs

This is an existing regulatory obligation. Coordinate with SAMP development. No other change recommended.

Monitoring

Evaluation of SMCLs should be coordinated with 303(d)/305(b) review or at 5-year frequency if a separate review is required.

303(d) and 305(b) are existing federal requirements for surface waters. For NPDES permits, effluent limits must be re-evaluated every 5 years as part of the renewal process. No change required.

Filtration

The use of 0.45 micron filter does not accurately represent conventional water filtration or groundwater pore filtration and is not an accurate translator to estimate the metal concentration likely to be present in treated drinking water when it is delivered to the customer.

Reference to the 0.45 micron filter size was deleted from the SNMP and does not appear in the BPA. Specify a more appropriate filter size and/or alternate methods (centrifuge, settling period) for evaluating the concentration of Table-A parameters in water while excluding the load associated with total suspended solids (TSS, silt).

Concentration Ranges

Upper and short-term salinity SMCLs should not be considered reasonable for continuous use. This is contrary to language of Title 22.

Text revised to state that "Short-term" threshold may only be authorized on a temporary basis and under certain conditions [§64449{d)(3)]. Upper threshold is acceptable for continuous use when if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable water.

Concentration Ranges

The list of factors should be restricted to developing appropriate WDRs for the SMCLs that are expressed as a range of concentrations (e.g. Table B). Should not be used to Table A constituents.

Factors do not "supersede" Table A objectives. Factors used to set WDRs, including application of antidegradation policy, in relation to those objectives. May need to create separate Implementation Sections for surface water vs. groundwaters to avoid confusion.

Antidegradation/ Antibacksliding

Add: "Under no circumstances will an effluent limit be set that is higher than the current level of the constituent in the effluent or the discharge."

Proposed text is inconsistent with state antidegradation policy and with federal antibacksliding regulations both of which allow higher effluent limits under certain conditions. No change recommended.

PACKAGE

Proposed Basin Plan Language for the SMCL Policy Last Updated on: 11/4/2017 1 | P a g e

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels

Proposed Modifications to the Basin Plans to Support SNMP Implementation

To implement this SMCL Policy, the Central Valley Water Board should adopt changes to the SRSJR and

TLB Basin Plans as summarized in the subsections below.

Following is a summary of proposed changes to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento

River and San Joaquin River Basins. Text additions to the existing Basin Plan language are underlined.

Text deletion to the existing Basin Plan are in strikethrough.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS

CHAPTER II - EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES

No changes to this section of the SRSJR Basin Plan is anticipated.

CHAPTER III - WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Modify the Basin Plan Page III-3.00, Chemical Constituents section will be modified as

follows:

Chemical Constituents

Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect

beneficial uses…

At a minimum, surface water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (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, and 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) and of Section 64449. This incorporation-by-reference is

prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the changes take

effect. At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN)

shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. 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. To

protect all beneficial uses the Regional Water Board may apply limits more stringent than

MCLs.

In addition, for surface waters designated MUN the concentration of chemical

constituents shall not exceed the “maximum contaminant level” specified in 22 CCR Table

64449-A or the “Upper” level specified in 22 CCR Table 64449-B, unless otherwise

PACKAGE


authorized by the Regional Water Board in accordance with the provisions of 22 CCR

Section 64449 et seq. Constituent concentrations ranging to the “Upper” level in Table

64449-B are acceptable if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable

waters; in addition, constituents ranging to the “Short Term” level in Table 64449-B may

be authorized on a temporary basis consistent with the provisions of §64449(d)(3). This

incorporation-by-reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated

provisions as the changes take effect. In cases where the surface water natural

background concentration of a particular chemical constituent exceeds the maximum

contaminant level specified in 22 CCR Table 64449-A or “Upper” level specified in Table

64449-B, the surface water shall not exceed that natural background concentration due to

controllable anthropogenic sources, unless the Regional Board authorizes it consistent

with State Antidegradation Policy.

At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not

contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. The Regional Water Board acknowledges that

specific treatment requirements are imposed by state and federal drinking water



MCLs.

Modify the Basin Plan Page III-10.00, Chemical Constituents section will be modified as follows:


Ground waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely

affect beneficial uses.

At a minimum, ground waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN)





(Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444. , and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum


Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449. This incorporation-by-reference is



shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. To protect all beneficial uses the Regional

Water Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.

In addition, for ground waters designated MUN, concentration of chemical constituents

shall not exceed the “maximum contaminant level” specified in 22 CCR Table 64449-A or

the “Upper” level specified in 22 CCR Table 64449-B unless otherwise authorized by the

Regional Water Board in accordance with the provisions of 22 CCR Section 64449 et seq.

Constituent concentrations ranging to the “Upper” level in Table 64449-B are acceptable if

it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable waters; in addition,

PACKAGE


constituents ranging to the “Short Term” level in Table 64449-B may be authorized on a

temporary basis consistent with the provisions of §64449(d)(3). This incorporation-by-

reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the

changes take effect. In cases where the natural background concentration of a particular

chemical constituent exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in 22 CCR Table

64449-A or “Upper” level specified in Table 64449-B, the ground water shall not exceed

that natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources, unless

the Regional Board authorizes it consistent with State Antidegradation Policy.


contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. To protect all beneficial uses the Regional Water

Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.

CHAPTER IV - IMPLEMENTATION

To support implementation of SMCLs, the following paragraphs are proposed for addition to the

SRSJR Basin Plan's Chapter IV. Implementation at a location in the Chapter to be determined.

For the chemical constituents identified in 22 CCR §64449 (Table B) the water quality

objectives shall be set as described in Chapter III-3.0 of this water quality control plan.

Lower concentrations of these chemical constituents are desirable for promoting greater

consumer confidence and acceptance of water supplied by community water systems,

and, where it is reasonable and feasible to do so, WDRs should consider the

“Recommended” values in 22 CCR §64449 (Table B). These “Recommended”

concentrations are not water quality objectives per se but should be considered water

resource management goals similar to other public policy goals established by the

Regional Water Board and State Water Board to encourage meeting the best possible

water quality while allowing greater water conservation, increased use of recycled water,

more stormwater harvesting, additional groundwater recharge and storage, better

drought protection, and allowing agricultural and wastewater dischargers to continue to

discharge to groundwater basins and surface water bodies.

To implement the SMCLs in the Chemical Constituents section of the surface water and

groundwater quality objectives, the Regional Water Board shall consider, as appropriate, a

number of site-specific factors when developing WDRs, including, but not limited to:

o The availability of assimilative capacity in the receiving water and compliance with the

antidegradation policies;

o Naturally occurring background concentrations;

o Background concentrations due to prior anthropogenic activities where it is not feasible or

practicable to remediate the effect of these past discharges;

o The net effect of discharges that improve receiving water quality;

o The presence or absence of other minerals (e.g., anion-cation balance) that may mitigate or

aggravate aesthetic acceptability;

PACKAGE


o The application of appropriate long-term averaging periods to evaluate compliance with WDR

monitoring requirements;

o The potential impact on downstream beneficial uses (MUN-designated surface water and

groundwater), including potential to impact water quality at the nearest downstream intakes

for a community water system;

o Evaluation of downstream or down-gradient community water system(s) to determine if a

waiver under 22 CCR §64449.2 has been obtained or if the provisions of §64449.4 are being

met.

o Economic factors including the practicality and feasibility of achieving compliance with the

SMCLs at the point-of-discharge (including consideration of cost for achieving compliance, the

availability of alternative water supplies for drinking water, ability to pay, and cost of non-

compliance);

o The ability of drinking water treatment processes to remove contaminants and the potential

effect on drinking water treatment costs for downstream and down-gradient community

water systems;

o Consideration of other regional salinity management requirements, including the ability to

meet existing downstream salinity-related water quality objectives in the SRSJR and TLB Basin

Plans and Bay Delta Plan1 and policies, recommendations or regulations resulting from

implementation of the CV-SALTS Salinity Management Strategy (see SNMP Attachment A-3);

o Potential for the permitted discharge to affect the concentration of constituents identified in

22 CCR Tables 64449-A and 64449-B at downstream and downgradient community water

systems to ensure a safe drinking water supply for users.

o Need for 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.

o The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy and the Central Valley SNMP’s goals to

increase the use of recycled water, increase stormwater use, and increase water conservation

as mechanisms to increase drought protection.

o The long-term cumulative impact of all discharges to the same receiving water.

o Modeling and any reduction in contaminants due to factors such as dilution and soil

adsorption; and

o Other environmental considerations.

Compliance with any chemical constituent in Tables 64449-A of 64449-B shall be determined from

the annual average of sample results based on the techniques in (a) and (b) below.

(a) Compliance with the chemical constituent water quality objective shall be determined

from a filtered water sample for the following constituents identified in 22 CCR

1 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, State Water Board, December 13, 2006.

PACKAGE


§64449 (Table A): Aluminum, Color, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Silver Turbidity and

Zinc.

(b) Compliance with the chemical constituent water quality objective shall be determined

from an unfiltered water sample for the following constituents identified in 22 CCR

§64449 (Table A): Foaming Agents (MBAs), Methyl-tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Odor-

Threshold and Thiobencarb.

(c) For receiving waters that have been deemed exempt from surface water filtration

requirements, compliance with chemical constituent water quality objectives for all

parameters identified in §64449-Tables A and B shall be determined using an

unfiltered water sample.2

Following is a summary of proposed changes to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake

Basin. Text additions to the existing Basin Plan language are underlined. Text deletion to the existing

Basin Plan are in strikethrough.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE TULARE LAKE BASIN

CHAPTER II - EXISTING AND POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL USES

No changes to this section of the TLB Basin Plan is anticipated.

CHAPTER III - WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES

Modify Basin Plan Page III-3, Chemical Constituents section will be modified as follows:


Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect

beneficial uses…

At a minimum, surface water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN)









2 USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. 71 Federal Register: 654-786. January 5, 2006.

PACKAGE



shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. The Regional Water Board acknowledges

that specific treatment requirements are imposed by state and federal drinking water



MCLs.

In addition, for surface waters designated MUN, concentration of chemical constituents









changes take effect. In cases where the surface water natural background concentration

of a particular chemical constituent exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in

22 CCR Table 64449-A or “Upper” level specified in Table 64449-B, the surface water shall

not exceed that natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic

sources, unless the Regional Board authorizes it consistent with State Antidegradation

Policy.


contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. The Regional Water Board acknowledges that

specific treatment requirements are imposed by state and federal drinking water



MCLs.

Modify Basin Plan Page III-7, Chemical Constituents section will be modified as follows:


Ground waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely

affect beneficial uses…

At a minimum, ground waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN)










PACKAGE


shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. To protect all beneficial uses the Regional

Water Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.

In addition, for ground waters designated MUN, concentration of chemical constituents









changes take effect. In cases where the natural background concentration of a particular

chemical constituent exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in 22 CCR Table

64449-A or “Upper” level specified in Table 64449-B, the ground water shall not exceed

that natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources, unless

the Regional Board authorizes it consistent with State Antidegradation Policy.


contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. To protect all beneficial uses the Regional Water

Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.

CHAPTER IV - IMPLEMENTATION

To support implementation of SMCLs, the following text will be added to the TLB Basin Plan's

Chapter IV. Implementation Plan at a location to be determined, but potentially in association with

“Policy for Application of Water Quality Objectives (Pg. IV-21 ff.):

For the chemical constituents identified in 22 CCR §64449 (Table B) the water quality

objectives shall be set as described in Chapter III-10.0 of this water quality control plan.

Lower concentrations of these chemical constituents are desirable for promoting greater

consumer confidence and acceptance of water supplied by community water systems,

and, where it is reasonable and feasible to do so, WDRs should consider the

“Recommended” values in 22 CCR §64449 (Table B). These “Recommended”

concentrations are not water quality objectives per se but, rather, should be considered

water resource management goals similar to other public policy goals established by the

Regional Water Board and State Water Board to encourage meeting the best possible

water quality while allowing greater water conservation, increased use of recycled water,

more stormwater harvesting, additional groundwater recharge and storage, better

drought protection, and allowing agricultural and wastewater dischargers to continue to

discharge to groundwater basins and surface water bodies.

To implement the SMCLs in the Chemical Constituents section of the surface water and

groundwater quality objectives, the Regional Water Board shall consider, as appropriate, a

number of site-specific factors when developing WDRs, including, but not limited to:

PACKAGE


o The availability of assimilative capacity in the receiving water and compliance with the

antidegradation policies;

o Naturally occurring background concentrations;

o Background concentrations due to prior anthropogenic activities where it is not feasible or

practicable to remediate the effect of these past discharges;

o The net effect of discharges that improve receiving water quality;

o The presence or absence of other minerals (e.g., anion-cation balance) that may mitigate or

aggravate aesthetic acceptability;

o The application of appropriate long-term averaging periods to evaluate compliance with WDR

monitoring requirements;

o The potential impact on downstream beneficial uses (MUN-designated surface water and

groundwater), including potential to impact water quality at the nearest downstream intakes

for a community water system;

o Evaluation of downstream or down-gradient community water system(s) to determine if a

waiver under 22 CCR §64449.2 has been obtained or if the provisions of §64449.4 are being

met.

o Economic factors including the practicality and feasibility of achieving compliance with the

SMCLs at the point-of-discharge (including consideration of cost for achieving compliance, the

availability of alternative water supplies for drinking water, ability to pay, and cost of non-

compliance);

o The ability of drinking water treatment processes to remove contaminants and the potential

effect on drinking water treatment costs for downstream and down-gradient community

water systems;

o Consideration of other regional salinity management requirements, including the ability to

meet existing downstream salinity-related water quality objectives in the SRSJR and TLB Basin

Plans and Bay Delta Plan3 and policies, recommendations or regulations resulting from

implementation of the CV-SALTS Salinity Management Strategy (see SNMP Attachment A-3);

o Potential for the permitted discharge to affect the concentration of constituents identified in

22 CCR Tables 64449-A and 64449-B at downstream and downgradient community water

systems to ensure a safe drinking water supply for users.

o Need for 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.

o The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy and the Central Valley SNMP’s goals to

increase the use of recycled water, increase stormwater use, and increase water conservation

as mechanisms to increase drought protection.

o The long-term cumulative impact of all discharges to the same receiving water.

3 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, State Water Board, December 13, 2006.

PACKAGE


o Modeling and any reduction in contaminants due to factors such as dilution and soil

adsorption; and

o Other environmental considerations.

Compliance with any chemical constituent in Tables 64449-A of 64449-B shall be determined from

the annual average of sample results based on the techniques in (a) and (b) below.

(a) Compliance with the chemical constituent water quality objective shall be determined

from a filtered water sample for the following constituents identified in 22 CCR

§64449 (Table A): Aluminum, Color, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Silver Turbidity and

Zinc.

(b) Compliance with the chemical constituent water quality objective shall be determined

from an unfiltered water sample for the following constituents identified in 22 CCR

§64449 (Table A): Foaming Agents (MBAs), Methyl-tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), Odor-

Threshold and Thiobencarb.

(c) For receiving waters that have been deemed exempt from surface water filtration

requirements, compliance with chemical constituent water quality objectives for all

parameters identified in §64449-Tables A and B shall be determined using an

unfiltered water sample.4

Potential language to include in a Monitoring and Surveillance Section:

Where parameter concentrations above SMCLs are not due to elevated natural background

conditions and increasing 5-year running average trends are documented, additional source

evaluation activities will be initiated by the Regional Board in coordination with dischargers to

and water purveyors utilizing the water body in question as well as other agencies and

interested parties.

4 USEPA. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. 71 Federal Register: 654-786. January 5, 2006.

PACKAGE

1

10/26/17

ATTACHMENT A: ALTERNATIVE BASIN PLAN LANGUAGE

As requested by Regional Board staff, the CUWA member agencies Contra Costa Water District and Zone

7 Water Agency and the Sacramento River Source Water Protection Program have prepared an

“alternative” to the proposed modifications to the Basin Plans to support SNMP implementation, as

presented in Section 4.0 of the Guidance to Implement Secondary MCLs (Attachment A-9 of the SNMP).

We have presented the alternative with our top priorities related to SMCLs. There are still other

implementation details that we believe would be better described in Regional Board Policies or Guidance,

rather than as specific text in the Basin Plan. This includes the need to ensure that these drinking water

constituents are evaluated periodically by Regional Board staff, perhaps more specifically as part of the

CWA Section 305(b) evaluation, to confirm the sufficiency of data collection, conduct a review of available

data, and prepare an assessment of the long-term trends of these constituents in key surface water bodies

used for MUN in the Central Valley. In addition, we would suggest that a guidance document be

developed to provide Regional Board staff in the future with a consistent process for application of the

SMCLs in permits under the process described in the Implementation chapter.

The alternative Basin Plan Language is as follows:

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

Text below is from the Basin Plan. Additions to the existing text are indicated by underline and deletions of existing text are indicated by strikeout.

Chapter III – Water Quality Objectives

Water Quality Objectives for Inland Surface Waters - Chemical Constituents (page III-3.00):

“At a minimum, surface water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (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. At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. 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. To protect all beneficial uses the Regional Water Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.” In addition, for surface waters designated MUN the concentration of chemical constituents shall not exceed the “Maximum Recommended” level specified in 22 CCR Table 64449‐B, unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Water Board in accordance with the provisions of 22 CCR Section 64449 et seq. Constituent concentrations ranging to the “Contaminant Upper” level in Table 64449‐B are acceptable only if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable waters, such as an Extended Dry Period defined in Chapter IV of this water quality control plan; in addition, constituents

PACKAGE

2

ranging to the “Short Term” level in Table 64449‐B may be authorized on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or development of acceptable new water sources. In cases where the surface water natural background concentration of a particular chemical constituent exceeds the “Maximum Recommended” level specified in Table 64449‐B, the surface water shall not exceed that natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources, unless the Regional Board authorizes it consistent with State Antidegradation Policy". This incorporation‐by reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the changes take effect. Water Quality Objectives for Ground Waters – Chemical Constituents (page III-10.00):

“At a minimum, ground waters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (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. At a minimum, water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain lead in excess of 0.015 mg/l. To protect all beneficial uses, the Regional Water Board may apply limits more stringent than MCLs.” In addition, for ground waters designated MUN, concentration of chemical constituents shall not exceed “Maximum Recommended” level specified in 22 CCR Table 64449‐B unless otherwise authorized by the Regional Water Board in accordance with the provisions of 22 CCR Section 64449 et seq. Constituent concentrations ranging to the “Contaminant Upper” level in Table 64449‐B are acceptable only if it is neither reasonable nor feasible to provide more suitable waters, such as an Extended Dry Period defined in Chapter IV of this water quality control plan; in addition, constituents ranging to the “Short Term” level in Table 64449‐B may be authorized on a temporary basis pending construction of treatment facilities or development of acceptable new water sources. In cases where the natural background concentration of a particular chemical constituent exceeds the “Maximum Recommended” level specified in Table 64449‐B, the ground water shall not exceed that natural background concentration due to controllable anthropogenic sources, unless the Regional Board authorizes it consistent with State Antidegradation Policy. This incorporation by reference is prospective, including future changes to the incorporated provisions as the changes take effect. Chapter IV – Implementation (Added to this section) For the chemical constituents identified in 22 CCR §64449 (Table B) the water quality objectives shall be set as described in Chapter III‐3.0 of this water quality control plan. Lower concentrations of these chemical constituents are desirable for promoting greater consumer confidence and acceptance of water supplied by community water systems. To implement the salinity SMCLs in the Chemical Constituents section of the surface water and groundwater quality objectives (Table 64449-B), the Regional Water Board shall consider, if requested and applied for by a permittee, site‐specific factors as appropriate when developing WDRs, including:

PACKAGE

3

The existing processes to reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, the discharge of the pollutant through pretreatment, source control, and/or pollution prevention;

List of possible methods for removing or reducing the concentrations and loadings of the pollutants from the discharge, including an assessment of technical effectiveness and costs of these methods;

The availability of assimilative capacity in the receiving water and compliance with the antidegradation policies;

Naturally occurring background concentrations;

Background concentrations due to prior anthropogenic activities where it is not feasible or practicable to remediate the effect of these past discharges;

The net effect of discharges that affect receiving water quality;

The potential impact on downstream water quality and beneficial uses (MUN‐designated surface water and groundwater) for current and future use;

Economic factors including the practicality and feasibility of achieving compliance with the SMCLs (including consideration of cost for achieving compliance, the availability of alternative water supplies for drinking water, ability to pay, and cost of noncompliance);

Consideration of other regional salinity management requirements, including the ability to meet existing downstream salinity‐related water quality objectives in the SRSJR and TLB Basin Plans and Bay Delta Plan and policies, recommendations or regulations resulting from implementation of the CV‐SALTS Salinity Management Strategy (see SNMP Attachment A‐3);

Potential for the permitted discharge to affect the concentration of constituents identified in 22 CCR Table 64449‐B in downstream and downgradient MUN waterbodies and groundwater basins to ensure a safe drinking water supply for current and future MUN users;

Need for additional monitoring to track the net effect of permitted discharges on downstream or downgradient MUN water bodies and to determine the need for additional management requirements to protect the MUN supply;

The State Water Board’s Recycled Water Policy and the Central Valley SNMP’s goals to increase the use of recycled water, increase stormwater use, and increase water conservation as mechanisms to increase drought protection;

The long‐term cumulative impact of all discharges to the same receiving water;

Modeling and any changes in contaminant concentrations due to fate and transport factors;

Consultation with the Division of Drinking Water to assess impacts to downstream or down-gradient community water systems, including: o Economic factors including the practicality and feasibility of achieving compliance with the salinity SMCLs (including consideration of cost for achieving compliance, the availability of alternative water supplies for drinking water, ability to pay, and cost of noncompliance); o The ability of drinking water treatment processes to remove contaminants and the potential effect on drinking water treatment costs for downstream and down‐gradient community water systems; and o Drinking water regulatory and human health information from US EPA, the Division of Drinking Water, and OEHHA.

Under no circumstance will an effluent limit be set that is higher than the current level of the constituent in the effluent or discharge. All WDRs with site-specific SMCL effluent limits shall be reviewed as part of the 305(b) evaluation.

PACKAGE

4

Compliance with any chemical constituent in Tables 64449‐A of 64449‐B shall be determined from the annual average of sample results from non-filtered water samples at each compliance point. Chapter V – Monitoring and Surveillance (Added to this section)

Monitoring and assessment programs are essential to evaluate the existing conditions and changes in

both surface and ground water quality caused by discharges. Where it is reasonable and feasible to do

so, WDRs should consider development of a monitoring program and/or assessment of existing

programs. Considering limited resources in certain areas of the Basin, a monitoring program is not a

strict requirement by this water quality control program, but it is desirable and should be implemented

as available resources allow.

NOTES:

The following is information on site-specific factors that we propose not to be included in the Basin Plan

Amendments. We have removed several items for the following reasons:

“The presence or absence of other minerals (e.g., anion‐cation balance) that may mitigate or aggravate aesthetic acceptability;” – This would be a very detailed analysis that assumes constant presence and ratio of minerals in the source water. This is not consistent for surface waters in the Central Valley as they change seasonally and are impacted by annual hydrology and releases/discharges to the receiving waters. WDRs are typically effective for 5 years or longer. Over such a period, there could be high uncertainties on the minerals presence in the ambient environment. Counting on the ambient conditions to mitigate the discharge impacts is not reasonable. “The application of appropriate averaging periods to evaluate compliance with WDR monitoring requirements;” – This could be conflicting with the last paragraph above which clearly states that compliance will be based on an annual average. It would be inconsistent to allow different periods of analysis and evaluation than the compliance. “Other environmental considerations.” – This is too general for evaluation at this point. If there are other factors that are desired to be included, those should be specified and available for review as part of the Basin Plan Amendment public process. “Evaluation of downstream or down‐gradient community water system(s) in consultation with the Division of Drinking Water and the downstream or down‐gradient community water system(s)to determine if a waiver under 22 CCR §64449.2 has been obtained or if the provisions of §64449.4 are being met;” – Both of these sections only apply to constituents in Table 64449-A and since we recommend their removal these are not applicable. If non-salinity SMCLs are kept in, this would be a sub-bullet under consultation with DDW.

PACKAGE

Program for Control and Permitting of Salinity Discharges in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River and Tulare Lake Basins

Salinity Control Program_Draft Version 4_110217 1 Version 4 – 11/02/17

The Program for Control and Permitting of Salinity Discharges in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins and in the Tulare Lake Basin (Salinity Control Program) applies to all surface and ground waters. This Salinity Control Program will be implemented in conjunction with and not replace the requirements of the Control Program for Salt and Boron Discharges into the Lower San Joaquin River (LSJR) adopted by Central Valley Water Board Resolution R5-2017-0062,1 or requirements of the Bay-Delta Plan, or other plans or programs.

This amendment was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on ______ April May 2018, and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on ______ 2018. The Effective Date of the Salinity Control Program shall be ______ 2018, the date of Office of Administrative Law approval. For those components subject to USEPA approval, the effective date shall be _______ 2018, the date of USEPA approval.

Program Overview

The Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) stakeholder initiative developed a comprehensive salt and nitrate management plan (SNMP) for the Central Valley Region, which was submitted to the Central Valley Water Board in January of 2017.2 The SNMP is the basis for the Salinity Control Program.

Based on the SNMP and its supporting studies, salt concentrations in surface and ground waters generally continue to increase over time under existing water quality management programs and strategies to control salt. Given these findings, the SNMP identified the need for implementation of a salinity management strategy with the following goals:

• Control the rate of degradation through a “managed degradation” program;

• Implement salinity management activities to achieve long-term sustainability and prevent continued impacts to salt sensitive areas;

• Where reasonable, feasible and practicable, protect beneficial uses by maintaining water quality that meets applicable water quality objectives and pursuing long-term managed restoration; and

• Protect beneficial uses by applying appropriate antidegradation requirements for high quality water.

The SNMP and supporting studies noted that in areas with significant salt concerns an evaluation of available options to manage salt locally shows that even with the use of existing management tools, the volume and mass of unmanaged salt is high. current management options only address 15% of the salt accumulating in the Central Valley Region, and Therefore, the need exists for local or sub-regional solutions as well as broad region-wide projects that will result in the export of salt out of the Central Valley. Additional studies are still needed to further define the range of solutions for surface and ground waters that may be deployed within each Central Valley hydrologic region to prevent continued impacts to salt sensitive areas in the Central Valley Region.

Given the need for these studies, the Regional Water Board will implement a phased Salinity Control Program consistent with the goals of the salinity management strategy. All permitted discharges shall comply with the provisions of this program. Two pathways to compliance are available during each phase (Figure 1):

1 In the LSJR Basin, management activities are addressing salinity impact to surface water but are not sufficient to address the long-term accumulation in the basin as a whole. 2 Insert reference for the SNMP

PACKAGE



Figure 1. Salinity Control Program Pathways to Compliance

PACKAGE



1. Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach, utilizes the is a conservative permitting approach. During Phase I, existing regulatory structure that under Phase I is utilized to focuses on source control, useincluding of conservative effluent limits and limited use of assimilative capacity and/or time schedule orders. Prior to initiation of Phases II and III of the During future phases of the Salinity Control Program, the ConservativeStandard Approach may be modifiedadjusted through a Basin Plan amendment based on findings from the previous phases.

2. Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, is an alternative approach to compliance through implementation of specific requirements during one or more phases, rather than application of conservative effluent limits. Under Phase I of this alternative, permittees must support facilitation and completion of the Salinity Prioritization and Optimization Study. General requirements under each phase for of the alternative approach are described below. Prior to initiation, these Rrequirements under Phases II and III may be adjusted under Phases II and III based on findings from the previous phases. Discharges subject to Title 27 CCR, Division 2, Subdivision 1 regulations governing discharges of hazardous and solid waste to land for treatment, storage, or disposal may not be permitted under the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach.

Phased Control Program

The Salinity Control Program will be implemented in three phases with each of the three phases having a duration of ten to fifteen years (Figure 1). Some portions of a subsequent phase may occur or be initiated prior to the end of an existing phase. At the discretion of the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, the completion date for any phase may be modified or extended. The findings from each phase will inform the next phase, allowing for implementation of an adaptive management approach to salt management in the Central Valley Region.

The phases of the Salinity Control Program are based on the activities occurring under the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, as follows:

Phase I – Prioritization and Optimization Study (P&O Study) - The P&O Study will facilitate the development of a long-term Salinity Control Program to achieve the goals of the salinity management strategy by coordinating and completing tasks and securing funding. The P&O Study will develop groundwater and surface water-related salinity data and information for sensitive and non-sensitive areas for hydrologic regions within the entire Central Valley Region, including guidelines to protect salt sensitive crops; identify sources of salinity and actions that impact salinity in surface and ground waters; evaluate impacts of state policies and programs; identify and prioritize preferred physical projects for long-term salt management (e.g. regulated brine line(s), salt sinks, regional/subregional de-salters, recharge areas, deep well injection, etc.); develop the conceptual design of preferred physical projects and assess the environmental permitting requirements associated with each of these projects; identify non-physical projects and plan for implementation; and develop a governance structure and funding plan. The P&O Study will inform Phases II and III of this Salinity Control Program. Based on the findings of the P&O Study, the Regional Water Board may modify the Basin Plan to facilitate implementation of Phases II or III.

Phase II – Project Development and Acquisition of Funds - Phase II of this Salinity Control Program will begin no later than at the end of Phase I, but some activities may be initiated during Phase I. Phase II includes the following key elements:

PACKAGE



• Using available funding sources, complete the engineering design and environmental permitting of preferred physical projects identified in Phase I;

• Initiating or continuing implementation of preferred non-physical projects identified during Phase I and, if appropriate, identification of new preferred non-physical projects and the process or milestones for implementation; and

• Securing the funding to implement the preferred physical projects.

Phase III – Project Implementation - During Phase III, construction of all preferred physical projects will be completed, unless already completed during Phase II. For large-scale capital projects, such as construction of a regulated brine line, construction may occur over multiple phases and additional time may be required to complete full build-out of the project.

Salinity Control Program Implementation

Permittees will be subject to Phase I of the Central Valley Salinity Control Program until **date*** (ten years from the effective date of the Basin Plan Amendments). Phase I may be extended up to five years at the discretion of the Regional Water Board Executive Officer based on the need to develop supporting Basin Plan Amendments to support implementation of Phase II, reduction in anticipated staff resources, or other factors. Table 1 depicts the key components of the two pathways to regulatory compliance under the Phase I Salinity Control Program. The Regional Water Board retains its discretion to adjust the established requirements on a case by case basis. However, because the Regional Water Board finds that implementation of the Salinity Control Program is best achieved through implementation of the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, application of such discretion will be limited under the Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach.

When Phase I of the Salinity Control Program is initiated, permittees will elect to be permitted either under the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach or the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach for the duration of Phase I. However, Iit is the intent of the Regional Water Board to encourage permitted surface water and groundwater dischargers to choose to participate in the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach in order to address long-term management of salinity throughout the Central Valley. Permittees will be provided the option to participate in each phase of the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach.

Upon completion of each phase and prior to the implementation of the next phase of the Salinity Control Program, the Regional Water Board may modify the Conservative and Alternative Salinity Permitting Approaches. Permittees will be provided the opportunity to change their compliance pathway selection at the beginning of Phases II and III. that participate in Phase I of the Alternative Approach may transition from compliance with the Salinity Control Program through the Alternative Approach to the Standard Approach during future phases of the Salinity Control Program.

For Discussion: As written and as shown in Figure 1, switching compliance pathways may only be done between phases. Do we want to incorporate language that allows permittees to make a special request to the Executive Officer to change compliance pathways during implementation of a phase?

PACKAGE



For Discussion: Not yet addressed is the situation where a permittee(s) seeks to de-designate MUN and/or AGR from a groundwater basin. Should language be included in Table 1 and in relevant sections below to state that proponents of a de-designation proposal must be participating in the P&O study?

Phase I Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach

The Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach applies to all permitted dischargers, unless the discharger elects to participate in the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach. Under the ConservativeStandard Salinity Permitting Approach, the Regional Water Board shall develop permit conditions based on the requirements established below. Unless the Standard Salinity Permitting Approach is modified after completion of Phase I, these requirements shall continue to apply in subsequent phases of the Salinity Control Program.

Groundwater and Non-NPDES Surface Water Discharges

The Regional Water Board shall apply the following principles to permits being issued for authorizing discharges of salinity to groundwater, or for authorization of discharges of salinity to surface waters that are not subject to NPDES permits under the federal Clean Water Act.

Table 1. Comparison between the Standard Conservative and Alternative Salinity Permitting Approaches during Phase I

Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach

All Discharges • Apply conservative assumptions for interpretation

of the narrative objectives and application of numeric water quality objectives to protect AGR and MUN beneficial uses

• Limited availability of a compliance or time schedule to meet a salinity-related effluent limit or waste discharge requirement

Groundwater Discharge and Non-NPDES Discharge • LimitedNo new or expanded allocation of

assimilative capacity in groundwater • Receiving water compliance determined using

shallow groundwater

• Does not meet eligibility requirements for an exception

NPDES Surface Water Discharge • A new or expanded allocation of assimilative

capacity may be authorized only where a discharger can show that the impact of the discharge is temporary or de minimus

• Does not meet eligibility requirements for a variance

All Discharges • Participate in the Phase I Prioritization and

Optimization Study throughout its duration • Continue implementing reasonable, feasible and

practicable efforts to control salinity using performance-based limits, including: - Salinity management practices - Existing pollution prevention, watershed,

and/or salt reduction plans - Monitoring - Maintenance of existing discharge

concentration or loading levels of salinity Groundwater and Non-NPDES Discharges • Deemed in compliance with salinity limits/eligible

for a salinity exception

NPDES Surface Water Discharges • Eligible for a salinity variance

PACKAGE



1. Interpreting Narrative and Numeric Water Quality Objectives – When the Regional Water Board interprets or applies water quality objectives for the purpose of establishing waste discharge requirements or conditions in a conditional waiver, the Regional Water Board shall use conservative assumptions. Where site-specific water quality objectives have been adopted in the Basin Plan for a waterbody, these objectives are not affected by the Salinity Control Program.

(a) AGR Beneficial Use Protection - The Regional Water Board shall apply a conservative, protective agricultural goal for electrical conductivity. The Regional Water Board will select a scientifically defensible value that is protective of salt sensitive crops, and intends to utilize a conservative goal of 700 µS/cm electrical conductivity (EC) (as a monthly average) during Phase I of the Salinity Control Program. For discharges where a site-specific agricultural goal has been developed and/or previously applied to the discharge, the Regional Water Board shall continue to apply that value, as appropriate.

(b) MUN Beneficial Use – For protection of this beneficial use, the Regional Water Board shall apply water quality objectives in a manner consistent with the SMCLs and intends to use the recommended SMCL of 900 µS/cm electrical conductivityEC (as an annual average) as a reasonable conservative effluent limit during Phase I of the Salinity Control Program.

2. Setting Permit Limits Provisions — Establishment of permit limits provisions will consider the following:

(a) Surface Water — The discharge cannot cause or contribute to an exceedance of the salinity objective in the receiving water.

(b) Groundwater — The discharge cannot cause or contribute to an exceedance of a salinity objective within the shallow groundwater.

3. Allocation of Assimilative Capacity – The Regional Water Board will limit new or expanded allocations of assimilative capacity. If a discharger has previously received an allocation of assimilative capacity, and the allocation was granted with the support of an antidegradation study or analysis, then the Regional Water Board may consider continuing the previously approved assimilative capacity, as appropriate.

3.4. Salinity Exception - Permittees operating under the Phase I Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach do not meet eligibility requirements for a salinity exception.

4.5. Issuance of Time Schedules – The Regional Water Board will limit use of time schedules for achieving compliance with salinity limitations and will use its discretion to limit the time allowed in the event that a time schedule is deemed necessary under the particular circumstances associated with that discharge. In general, a discharger shall be allowed no more than five years to meet a salinity limitation in order to allow time to complete capital improvements.

NPDES Surface Water Discharges

The Regional Water Board shall apply the following principles to permits being issued for authorizing discharges of salinity to surface waters that are subject to NPDES permit provisions as required by the federal Clean Water Act.

1. Interpreting Narrative and Numeric Water Quality Objective - When the Regional Water Board interprets or applies water quality objectives for the purpose of conducting a reasonable potential

PACKAGE



analysis and establishing a permit effluent limit (if reasonable potential is found), the Regional Water Board shall select applicable salinity water quality objectives using conservative assumptions. Where site-specific water quality objectives have been adopted for a waterbody in the Basin Plan, these objectives are not affected by the Salinity Control Program.

(a) AGR Beneficial Use Protection - The Regional Water Board shall apply a conservative, protective agricultural goal for electrical conductivity. The Regional Water Board will select a scientifically defensible value that is protective of salt sensitive crops, and intends to utilize a conservative goal of 700 µS/cm EC (as a monthly average) during Phase I of the Salinity Control Program. For discharges where a site-specific criterion has been developed and/or previously applied to the discharge, the Regional Water Board shall continue to apply that value, as appropriate.

(b) MUN Beneficial Use – For protection of this beneficial use, the Regional Water Board shall apply water quality objectives in a manner consistent with the SMCLs and intends to use the recommended SMCL of 900 µS/cm EC (annual average) as a reasonable conservative effluent limit during Phase I of the Salinity Control Program.

2. Setting Permit LimitsProvisions—Unless previously allocated assimilative capacity, permit limitsprovisions shall be established to ensure that the discharge cannot cause or contribute to an exceedance of the salinity objective in the receiving watermeets the salinity objectives in the receiving water.

3. Allocation of Assimilative Capacity (i.e., mixing zone/dilution credit) – The Regional Water Board will limit new or expanded allocation of assimilative capacity in surface water (i.e., mixing zone/dilution credit) and will consider whether a discharger can show that the impact of the discharge is temporary or de minimus, such that reduction of water quality will be spatially localized or temporally limited with respect to the waterbody. The Regional Water Board may consider maintaining any previously approved allocations of assimilative capacity, if there have been no material changes to the discharge.

4. Salinity Variance – Dischargers operating under the Phase I Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach do not meet eligibility requirements for a salinity variance.

5. Compliance Schedule – Where a reasonable potential finding has been made and the discharger is unable to comply with a water quality-based effluent limit, the Regional Water Board will use its discretion to limit the use of timecompliance schedules authorized by the State Water Board Compliance Schedule Policy for achieving compliance with salinity-based effluent limits, and will use its discretion to limit the time allowed in the event that a time compliance schedule is deemed necessary under the particular circumstances associated with the discharge. In general, a discharger shall be allowed no more than five years to meet a salinity limitation in order to allow time to complete capital improvements.

Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach

Dischargers may elect to be permitted for discharges of salinity by participating in the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach. Permittees electing to participate in the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach are given the opportunity to participate collectively in the P&O Study with other permittees, the Regional Water Board and other stakeholders, including those importing and benefitting from water

PACKAGE



supplies from the Central Valley, to work toward full implementation of the Salinity Control Program. Key milestones for the P&O Study are identified in Table 2 and outlined in Figure 2.

In the event theWhere the P&O Study does not meet the milestones established in Table 2 or where the Regional Water Board finds that participating permittees are not making reasonable progress towards achieving the milestones, the Regional Water Board will notify participating permittees of its findings through public notice that includes a required schedule for completion of the P&O Study milestones. Failure to comply with the notice will result in all permittees that elected to be permitted under the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach to be subject to the requirements of the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach. unless otherwise extended by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, all permittees that elected to be permitted under the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach will be subject to the Standard Salinity Permitting Approach.

PACKAGE



Table 2. Key Phase I Prioritization and Optimization Study Milestones Implementation

Schedule Milestone/ Deliverable Minimum Requirements

6 ____ months from effective date Phase I Workplan

Workplan to include: • Detailed P&O Study task descriptions • Cost estimate for each task • Task completion schedule • Stakeholder participation elements

Within 18 12 months from effective date

Phase I Funding & Governance Plan

Complete Phase I implementation planning: • Establish the entity and procedures for governance of the P&O Study • plan to sSecure sufficient funding to complete the P&O Study

Annually upon anniversary of effective date

Annual Progress Report

Annual Report to summarize: • Progress on Workplan execution • Status of Phase I funding and expenditures • Stakeholder participation

5 years from effective date

Interim Project Report

By Central Valley Hydrologic Region, identify: • Recommended preferred physical projects with recommended next

steps for development • Recommended non-physical projects and a schedule for implementation


Long-term Governance Plan for Phases II and III

Governance Plan that establishes: • How Phase II & III will be implemented • Governance structure including:

- Stakeholder roles and responsibilities - Committees responsible for development of policies, technical

documents, BMPs and funding


Long-term Funding Plan for Phases II and III

Funding Plan that establishes: • Financial approach for long-term funding including sources and funding

types (grants, bonds, loans, etc.) • Approach for the equitable management and funding of long-term,

large-scale salinity management projects


Basin Plan Amendment Recommendations

As needed, recommended amendments to Basin Plans to: • Facilitate implementation of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program • As appropriate, modify the Standard Conservative or Alternative Salinity

Permitting Approaches;

10 years from effective date Final Project Report

• For preferred physical projects: - Conceptual designs - Assessment of environmental permitting requirements

• Status of implementation of non-physical projects per Interim Project Report with recommendations for modifications, as needed

PACKAGE



Notwithstanding a permittee’s election and desire to participate in the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, the Regional Water Board retains its discretion to require more stringent controls than those identified here on high priority saline discharges and/or in salt sensitive areas. Salinity discharges shall be implemented in a manner consistent with state and federal antidegradation policies (State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR §131.12), as applicable. The Regional Water Board shall develop salinity-related permit conditions based on the requirements established below. Permitted Ssalinity discharges shall be implemented in a manner consistent with state and federal antidegradation policies (State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 and 40 CFR §131.12), as applicable. Discharges subject to Title 27 CCR, Division 2, Subdivision 1 regulations governing discharges of hazardous and solid waste to land for treatment, storage, or disposal may not be permitted under the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach

Groundwater and Non-NPDES Surface Water Discharges

The Regional Water Board shall apply the following principles to permits being issued for authorizing discharges of salinity to groundwater, or for authorization of discharges of salinity to surface waters that are not subject to NPDES permits under the federal Clean Water Act.

1. Participation in P&O Study - Dischargers electing the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach shall be required to participate in efforts related to conducting the P&O Study including providing the minimum required level of financial support. The level of participation would vary based on salinity in the discharge, local conditions or other factors. The needed level of participation would be established by the lead entity (i.e., Central Valley Salinity Coalition [CVSC]) that is overseeing the P&O Study. The lead entity must confirm adequate participation by the discharger(s) until the P&O Study is completed; or, until such time that the Regional Water Board otherwise revises the applicable waste discharge requirements and/or conditional waiver. The timeframe for completion of the P&O Study is expected to be ten years from the effective date of this Salinity Control Program but may be extended by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer for a period of up to five years.

2. Setting Permit ProvisionsLimits - Adequate participation in the P&O study, as confirmed by the lead entity overseeing the P&O Study, shall be found by the Regional Water Board to provide compliance with effluent limitations, receiving water limits, or other applicable provisions based on salinity.

3. Implementation of Reasonable, Feasible, and Practicable Efforts to Control Salinity - The Regional Water Board will require continued implementation of reasonable, feasible and practicable efforts to control levels of salinity in discharges. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, implementation of management practices that are designed to reduce salinity in discharges; implementation of pollution prevention plans, watershed plans, and/or salt reduction plans that help to reduce salt loads in discharges to groundwater or surface water; and, monitoring for salinity in surface water or groundwater as part of existing local, watershed-based or regional monitoring programs, in coordination with monitoring under the SNMP.

4. Maintain Current Discharge Concentrations for Salinity or Mass Loading Levels - To the extent feasible, reasonable, and practicable (and while accounting for conservation, salinity levels in the water supply source, and some appropriate increment of growth), the Regional Water Board may use its discretion to adopt performance-based effluent limitationslimits to the extent the Regional Water Board finds it appropriate and necessary for salinity for dischargers electing the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach.

PACKAGE



NPDES Surface Water Discharges

The Regional Water Board shall apply the following principles to permits being issued for authorizing discharges of salinity to surface waters that are subject to NPDES permits under the federal Clean Water Act.

1. Participation in P&O Study - Dischargers electing the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach shall be required to participate in efforts related to conducting the P&O Study including providing the minimum required level of financial support. The level of participation would vary based on salinity in the discharge, local conditions or other factors. The needed level of participation would be established by the lead entity (i.e., CVSC) that is overseeing the P&O Study. The lead entity must confirm adequate participation by the discharger(s) until the P&O Study is completed; or, until such time that the Regional Water Board otherwise revises the applicable NPDES permit. The timeframe for completion of the P&O Study is expected to be ten years from the effective date of this Salinity Control Program but may be extended by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer for a period of up to five years.

2. Requirements for Ensuring Reasonable Protection of Beneficial Uses - Adequate participation in the P&O study as confirmed by the lead entity overseeing the P&O Study shall be found by the Regional Water Board to provide compliance with receiving water limits based on salinity. To the extent that the discharge in question is found to have reasonable potential for causing or contributing to a violation of an applicable salinity water quality objective pursuant to applicable federal regulations, the discharge is eligible for a salinity variance pursuant to the Salinity Variance Policy.

3. Implementation of Reasonable, Feasible, and Practicable Efforts to Control Salinity - The Regional Water Board will continue to require implementation of reasonable, feasible and practicable efforts to control levels of salinity in discharges. Such efforts may include, but are not limited to, implementation of management practices that are designed to reduce salinity in discharges; implementation of pollution prevention plans, watershed plans, and/or salt reduction plans that help to reduce salt loads in discharges to surface waters; and, continued monitoring for salinity in surface water as part of existing local, watershed-based or regional monitoring programs, in coordination with monitoring under the SNMP.

4. Maintain Current Discharge Concentrations for Salinity or Mass Loading Levels - To the extent feasible, reasonable, and practicable (and while accounting for conservation, salinity levels in the water supply source, and some appropriate increment of growth), the Regional Water Board may use its discretion to adopt performance-based effluent limitationslimits to the extent the Regional Water Board finds it appropriate and necessary for salinity for dischargers electing the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach.

Process to Select Pathway of Compliance Under Phase I of the Salinity Control Program

This section establishes the process and schedule to select a pathway of compliance under the Phase I Salinity Control Program. For permittees that select the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, nothing here prevents, or should be interpreted to prevent, permittees from implementing elements of the Phase I P&O Study prior to receiving a Notice to Comply.

PACKAGE



Existing Discharges

The Regional Water Board shall issue a Notice to Comply with the Salinity Control Program to existing dischargers in the Central Valley Region within one year of the effective date of the Basin Plan Amendments. Within six months after receiving the Notice to Comply, existing dischargers shall notify the Regional Water Board of its decision of whether to be permitted under the Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach or the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach. Based on the selection of the permitting approach, the discharger shall comply with the following requirements:

• Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach – A discharger that selects this approach must submit an assessment of how the discharge will comply with the conservative requirements set forth in the Standard Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach. The discharger shall submit this assessment to the Regional Water Board with the notification to the Regional Water Board of its permit compliance pathway decision. If the Regional Water Board does not concur with the findings of the assessment, the Regional Water Board will request a Report of Waste Discharge with a deadline for submittal.

• Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach – A discharger that selects this approach shall participate in the Phase I P&O Study by providing the minimum required level of financial or in-kind support throughout Phase I as determined by the lead entity overseeing the P&O Study. The discharger shall provide documentation of the required support with the notification to the Regional Water Board of its permitting decision. If the discharger has an approved salinity-related Time Schedule Order or Compliance Schedule that expires prior to the completion of the Phase I P&O Study, the Regional Water Board, at its discretion, may extend the Time Schedule Order or Compliance Schedule, as appropriate.

New or Substantively Modified Discharges

A new discharger, or existing discharger seeking a permit modification due to a substantial and/or material change to a facility, shall indicate how the discharger intends to comply with the Salinity Control Program at the time of application and provide the required information to support the decision, as described above.

Failure to Comply

Any discharger that does not submit a response to the Notice to Comply within the required six-month period may be subject to enforcement action. Dischargers subject to enforcement for failure to respond to the Notice to Comply may still select the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach, but may be subject to additional fees or penalties in addition to providing the minimum required level of financial support.

Dischargers that elect to participate in the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach must continue to provide the minimum required level of financial or in-kind support to the P&O Study throughout the duration of Phase I of the Salinity Control Program. Where a discharger fails to comply with this requirement, the Regional Water Board may require the discharger to comply with the requirements of the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach after giving appropriate notice.

Salinity Control Program - Phase I to Phase II Re-Evaluation

Upon completion of Phase I and prior to initiation of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program, the Regional Water Board will use the findings of the P&O Study, results from surveillance and monitoring programs, and progress made towards meeting the overarching goals of the Salinity Control Program to re-evaluate the

PACKAGE



Conservative and Alternative Salinity Permitting Approaches applicable under Phase I of the Salinity Control Program. Based on the findings of this re-evaluation, the Regional Water Board may modify the Phase I permitting requirements to establish Conservative and Alternative Salinity Permitting Approaches applicable to Phase II. Where modification to the Phase I permitting approaches requires a Basin Plan amendment, this amendment will be completed prior to the initiation of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program.

Based on the outcome of the re-evaluation of the Phase I permitting approaches, upon initiation of the Phase II program permittees may elect to continue with or change their original Phase I compliance pathway selection. The process to select a compliance pathway under Phase II includes the following requirements:

• No Changes to the Phase I Conservative or Alternative Permitting Approaches - If the Regional Water Board makes no changes to the Phase I Conservative or Alternative Salinity Permitting Approaches prior to the initiation of Phase II, no notification to the Regional Water Board is required for permittees that plan to remain under the compliance pathway originally selected for Phase I. However, a permittee may elect to change its compliance pathway under Phase II by notifying the Regional Water Board of its decision within 90 days of initiation of Phase II and complying with the following requirements, as applicable:

─ Change from the Alternative to the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach - The permittee shall submit an assessment of how its discharge will comply with the requirements of the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach applicable at the beginning of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program. If the Regional Water Board does not concur with the findings of the assessment, the Regional Water Board will request a Report of Waste Discharge with a deadline for submittal.

─ Change from the Conservative to the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach - The permittee shall comply with the requirements of the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach applicable at the beginning of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program, and shall provide documentation to the Regional Water Board that it is providing the minimum required level of support for participation in Phase II of the Salinity Control Program.

• Modification to the Phase I Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach - Where the the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach is modified prior to initiation of Phase II, the Regional Water Board will notify all permittees that elected under Phase I to be permitted under the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach of the revised permitting requirements within 90 days after modifications to the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach become effective. The notification will provide opportunity for the permittee to elect to continue with the Conservative Permitting Salinity Approach or change to the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach under Phase II.

─ If the permittee elects to continue under the Conservative Permitting Salinity Approach under Phase II, within 90 days of receiving the notification the permittee shall submit an assessment of how its discharge will comply with the Phase II requirements of the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach. If the Regional Water Board does not concur with the findings of the assessment, the Regional Water Board will request a Report of Waste Discharge with a deadline for submittal.

PACKAGE



─ If the permittee elects to change to the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach under Phase II, it shall provide the minimum required Phase II level of financial or in-kind support throughout Phase II. The permittee shall notify the Regional Water Board of its decision within 90 days of receiving the notification and provide documentation that it has provided the required level of Phase II support.

• Modification to the Phase I Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach - Where the Regional Water Board modifies the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach prior to initiation of Phase II, permittees that participated in this approach under Phase I will continue to be permitted under this approach unless the permittee elects to change its compliance pathway to the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach.

─ Permittees that elect to continue to be permitted under the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach under Phase II shall provide the minimum required Phase II level of financial or in-kind support throughout the duration of Phase II.

─ Permittees that elect to change their compliance pathway to the Conservative Permitting Salinity Approach under Phase II, shall submit, within 90 days after the revised Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach for Phase II becomes effective, an assessment of how its discharge will comply with the Phase II requirements for the Conservative Salinity Permitting Approach. If the Regional Water Board does not concur with the findings of the assessment, the Regional Water Board will request a Report of Waste Discharge with a deadline for submittal.

Transition from Phase I to Phase II

If a discharger elects to change its compliance pathway after the completion of Phase I, the discharger shall notify the Regional Water Board of this decision within six-months of the end of Phase I and comply with the following:

• Change to the Standard Salinity Permitting Approach - The discharger shall submit an assessment of how the discharge will comply with the requirements of the Standard Salinity Permitting Approach applicable at the beginning of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program. If the Regional Water Board does not concur with the findings of the assessment, the Regional Water Board will request a Report of Waste Discharge with a deadline for submittal.

• Change to the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach - The discharger shall comply with the requirements of the Alternative Salinity Permitting Approach applicable at the beginning of Phase II of the Salinity Control Program, and shall provide documentation to the Regional Water Board that the required support for participation in Phase II of the Salinity Control Program has been submitted to the lead entity.

Recommendations to Other Agencies (Discussion with Agencies Still Occurring)

The implementation of long-term salinity management solutions to achieve a salt balance and prevent continued impacts to salt sensitive areas in the Central Valley is a statewide issue. Efforts to achieve salt sustainability will require significant participation and potentially specific actions by local, state and federal entities. It is recommended that these entities participate in the P&O Study by providing financial, technical and policy support to the P&O Study. This participation is essential as findings from the P&O Study will

PACKAGE



direct the implementation of preferred physical and non-physical projects in the phased Salinity Control Program.

The Regional Water Board will pursue mechanisms to ensure participation in the funding and implementation of the P&O Study by entities that directly or indirectly (a) impact salt concentrations in or loadings to surface and ground waters in the Central Valley; (b) adversely affect the amount of assimilative capacity available in surface or ground waters in the Central Valley; or (c) benefit from the implementation of projects that support the salinity management goals of this Salinity Control Program. The Regional Water Board will pursue participation by local, state and federal entities in the P&O Study through the following actions or recommendations:

• The Regional Water Board will require dischargers who are not permitted under waste discharge requirements/conditional waiver or NPDES permit and that have the potential to contribute to a water quality impairment or to lower water quality because of salinity to participate in the P&O Study.

• Before granting new or modified permits for water storage or diversion which that involve the interbasin transfer of water, the State Water Board should consider requiring the applicant to participate in the P&O Study.

• The State Water Board should consider using its water rights authority, as appropriate, to maximize participation in the P&O Study, especially where granting water rights separates water from its watershed resulting in the accumulation of salt in inland areas.

• Through their existing authorities established in Section 13225(c) or Section 13257 of the California Water Code, the State Water Board should encourage participation in the P&O Study by:

- Water management entities in the Central Valley Region, regardless of size, including, but not limited to, entities responsible for the management of the Delta and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

- Federal, state, or local agencies responsible for management of existing or development of new water resources facilities that have the potential to modify flows in surface waters and groundwater levels in groundwater basins.

- Federal and state water and land management agencies, e.g., that manage aquatic and wildlife resources that will benefit from the control of salt in the Central Valley Region, e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

• In addition to direct participation in the funding and implementation of the P&O Study, the Regional Water Board recommends that entities that oversee the issuance of grants to support water resource programs that are relevant to salinity management prioritize grant funding to support implementation of the Salinity Control Program.

• The California Department of Food and Agriculture should participate in the P&O Study to ensure that the implementation of its programs and policies are consistent with the requirements of the Salinity Control Program.

• Federal water related agencies should:

PACKAGE



- Participate in the P&O Study to ensure that actions they plan, permit, or implement are consistent with the requirements of the Salinity Control Program.

- Allocate funding to participate in the execution of the P&O Study Workplan and support implementation of the Salinity Control Program.

Coordination with Other Salt and Nitrate-Related Management Policies

PLACEHOLDER for nexus with other SNMP policies related to salinity management (As needed, references/links to related sections in the new Program for the Control of Salt and Nitrate Management in the Central Valley or other Basin Plan Implementation Chapter sections, e.g., Salinity Variance Program, Exceptions Policy for Discharges to Groundwater, Offsets Policy, Drought & Water Conservation Policy, SMCL Guidance)

PACKAGE



Figure 2. General Outline of Key Elements to be Included in Phase I P&O Study A3-1. Proposed Phase I Prioritization and Optimization Study Schedule

Category Year of Implementation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Stakeholder Coordination

Stakeholder Coordination Meetings (as needed frequency)

SGMA GSA Coordination Meetings (as needed frequency)

Strategic Planning Regulatory and Policy Evaluations Phase II Planning, including

Basin Plan amendment recommendations

Governance Governance Plan – Formation and Structure Implementation and Refinement of Governance Plan

Funding Funding Plan and Financing Strategy Implementation/Refinement of the Funding Plan and Financing Strategy

Prioritization & Salinity Management

Analyses

Prioritization/Salt Management Analyses to Support Identification of Salt Management Projects

Interim Report

Conceptual Design of Salt Management

Project

Concept Design for Subregional Salt Management Projects and Regional CVBL Project in Final Report

Special Studies

Groundwater Quality Trace Constituent Stud

Emerging Tech Update

No. 1


No. 2


No. 3

Recycled Water Imports

Study

Stormwater Recharge Master

Plan Study

PACKAGE

6/15/1710/26/17 Draft Version 12 Draft for Approval

CV-SALTS STATE BOARD CLEANUP

AND ABATEMENT FUNDED GRANT

SCOPE, BUDGET AND SCHEDULE

1. CAA FUNDING FOR CV-SALTS EARLY IMPLETMENTATION TASKS

The purpose of using CAA funds available for the Salinity and Nitrate Management Plan

Strategiesy (SNMPS) early iImplementation is to support early implementation of the

Salinity Management Strategy key elements of the Salt and Nitrate Management Plan

(SNMPS) by completing tasks that support and speed early implementation and provide

templates that assist participants and the grantee. Grant funding would be used to help

permittees understand the regulatory proposals that are currently under consideration,

to further develop future salt and nitrate management strategies, and to fund pilot

projects designed to identify nitrate-impacted groundwater users and to assist those

users in securing safe drinking water supplies.

This approach was reviewed and comments were provided by the Executive Committee

in April 2017. CV-SALTS has identified the Kings River Conservation District as the

Grant recipient on behalf of CV-SALTS and the Grantee. Both the Grantee and CV-SALTS

benefit from the grant tasks and completion.

The tasks would include:

Management Zone Pilot Study Technical Assistance support - $315,000

Prioritization and Optimization Study Work Plan, Schedule and Budget - $75,000

Implementation Outreach Tasks - $70,000

Administration and Program Management – up to $40,000 by grant recipient

Additional details as well as the scope, budget, deliverables and schedule are shown in

the following pages by task.

2. The Grantee intends to cooperatively complete the tasks in coordination with the CV-

SALTS Executive Committee and the Central Valley Salinity Coalition. The overall

Budget is intended to expend all funds with are approximately $500,000, with any

shortfall coming from the Administration/Program Management Task. An overall

compilation of the task reports will be submitted at the end of the grant contract.

PACKAGE

2

3. The overall schedule will not exceed 3 years with primary program tasks not exceeding

30 months from award unless extended.

PACKAGE

6/15/17 10/26/17Draft Version 34 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL

MANAGEMENT ZONE PILOT STUDY

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TASK

1. CAA FUNDING FOR MANAGEMENT ZONE PILOT STUDY

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The purpose of using the CAA funds available for SNMPS early

ImplementaitonImplementation is to provide assistance to early adopters of the

Management Zone Permitting for Nitrates. This would achieve several purposes:

Encourage early participation and reduce financial/technical burden to early

adopters

Assist the first few Management Zones in development of technical and

management documents that can act as templates for future management zones

Identification of nitrate-impacted groundwater users and to assist those users in

securing safe drinking water supplies

Allow CV-SALTS Executive Committee to be more involved in the development

of the early management zones to be sure they can implement in the manner

intended

Reduce the likely failure of early Management Zone proposals to the Regional

Board

Increase Management Zone outreach and use of templates

A. Scope of Work

i. Contract Support and Management

1. Contractor will manage and report on the status of the contract and

support the CV-SALTS Executive Committee and Executive Director (ED)

of Central Valley Salinity Coalition (CVSC) scoping identified proposals.

2. CV-SALTS will identify up to 3 early areas who wish to develop

management zones for nitrate permitting compliance and solicit

documentation of their needs

3. The CVSC ED and the Consultant will determine the technical, outreach,

governance and organizational assistance needed based on the proposal

and group needs

4. Consultant will support the CVSC ED and the Executive Committee in

review and selection of areas based on their requests and

recommendations from CVSC

PACKAGE

2

5. Consultant will compile initial draft and finalize templates, materials and

a brief report of results for Executive Committee acceptance

ii. Technical Support

1. Work directly with the Management Zone groups to assist with elements

they request in their proposal for that Management zone. Elements may

include technical studies, outreach, governance and organizational issues,

early action plans, reporting or other needs to the limit of the budget of

CAA and local funds

1.2.Work with Management Zone groups to develop Early Action Plans (EAP)

to, in part, identify nitrate-impacted groundwater users in their

Management Zone and to assist those users in securing safe drinking

water supplies

2.3.Complete tasks for Management Zone Group to present to the Technical

Committee or Executive Committee for review and comment

3.4.Assist Management Zone Group in finalizing their proposed Management

Zone to the Regional Board for review and approval

4.5.Summarize efforts into final templates for use by others

B. Budget

i. Recommend $315,000 of the $500,000 be allocated to Management Zone

Technical Assistance

ii. Contract support and management not to exceed $35,000

iii. Budget based on up to three groups as Management Zone implementation

archetypes

iv. Consultant team to provide support based on the approved agreement to

complete tasks

v. Budgets will be maximums and may be supplemented by management zone

group funds under agreement

C. Deliverables

i. Summary Work Plan and scope/cost estimates for proposed Management Zones

ii. Initial draft templates for submittals required of a management zone

iii. Technical reports based on the scope requested

iv. Applications, Discussion drafts and submittals to CV-SALTS or the Regional

Board

v. Finalized templates for SNMP Management Zone Submittals

D. Schedule

PACKAGE

3

i. Schedule in grant should be flexible up to 30 months for completion of all task

ii. Each Management Zone Group support effort may take up to 24 month

developing materials and an additional 6 months in review and approval

iii. Final report, templates and materials should be submitted within 32 months

PACKAGE

6/15/17 Draft Version3 Draft for Approval

PRIORITIZATION AND

OPTIMIZATION PLAN TASK

1. CAA FUNDING FOR PRIORITIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION STUDY

The purpose of using CAA funds available for SNMPS early implementation is to support

implementation of the Salinity and Nitrate Management Plan Strategies key element of

the Salt and Nitrate Management Plan (SNMP) by developing a detailed workplan for

the Phase 1 Prioritization and Optimization (P&O) Study. This would achieve several

purposes:

Advance the P&O Study from a conceptual description to a detailed workplan with

expected deliverables;

Clarify the scope and intent of the P&O Study tasks with regards to groundwater and

surface water;

Support long-term salinity planning efforts to secure sufficient funding to complete

the P&O Study over an estimated ten-year period; and

Provide information to stakeholders regarding how to best participate in the P&O

Study during execution of the workplan.

A. Scope of Work - Develop Phase 1 P&O Study Workplan

i. Work with Executive Committee to develop the following:

1. Develop detailed scope of work for the P&O Study based on the original

description of the study incorporated into the Salinity Management

Strategy, the SNMP and the Strategic Salt Accumulation Land and

Transportation Study Phase 3 Report (Table 4-4). Elements to be

developed include description and purpose each task, e.g., how it supports

implementation of the Salinity Management Strategy and applicability of

task elements to surface water and/or groundwater, and description of

key subtasks and expected deliverables.

2. Develop detailed requirements to be completed by permitees who choose

not to participate in the P&O study and prepare this own Salinity

Management Sustainability Plan.

3. Develop detailed cost estimate for completion of each of the

tasks/subtasks described in the scope of work. The basis for the cost

estimate will be provided.

PACKAGE

2

4. Develop schedule for completion of each P&O Study task within the

overall 10-year time frame planned for the Phase 1 Study.

PACKAGE

3

B. Budget

i. Recommend $75,000 of the $500,000 be allocated to development of the Phase

1 P&O Study Workplan.

C. Deliverables

i. Draft outline for workplan and meeting materials

ii. Draft Workplan for review and comment

iii. Final Workplan with response to comments

D. Schedule

i. Complete within approximately six – eight months of a notice to proceed on the

project depending on stakeholder and Regional Board reviews.

ii. Coordinate deliverable reviews with Executive Committee meeting process.

PACKAGE

6/15/17 10/26/17Draft Version 45 DRAFT FOR APPROVAL

CV-SALTS IMPLEMENTATION

OUTREACH TASK

1. CAA FUNDING FOR CV-SALTS IMPLEMENTATION OUTREACH

The purpose of using the CAA funds available for SNMP Implementation Outreach is to

engage permittees in the implementation of the CV-SALTS SNMP. This effort will reduce

the barriers to implementation and assist the regulated community with understanding

and economically implementing the SNMP. Other sections of this grant are dedicated to

Management Zone Permitting for Nitrates, while this section would target all types of

permittees and may also assist with the Salinity Permitting Strategy implementation.

This outreach is intended to achieve several purposes:

Expand knowledge of salt and nitrate issues in the Central Valley and how they

are addressed but he in the SNMP

Encourage early participation and misinformation among the regulated

community

Assist the regulated community in identifying the most economic and effective

method to comply with the new requirements of the SNMP.

Assist Management Zones with materials and support tools for working with the

Disadvantaged Communities in their zones

Assist the regulated community in understanding the salt permitting strategy

and how to participate in the Prioritization and Optimization Study

Outreach to potential non-permittee Management Zone participants to improve

their understanding of the benefits of participation

A. Scope of Work

i. Outreach Consultant to coordinate and support the Public Education and

Outreach Committee (PEOC) and to provide project management and reporting

ii. With the PEOC, identify materials and communication outreach method to

support the goals above.

iii. Develop in Draft with the PEOC, and Finalize through the Executive Committee

materials that support the program, including:

1. Pamphlets or fact sheets or similar materials for outreach

2. Email, web, social media and other communication pieces

3. Public explanation, video, or other support to assist permittees and their

public in understanding the SNMP and implementation requirements

PACKAGE

2

4. Press -focused outreach materials and copy for newsletters and local

press

iv. Support area, community or and industry outreach as requested

v. Report effectiveness and accomplishments

vi. Compile final materials and a brief report of results for Executive Committee

acceptance.

B. Budget

i. Recommend $70,000 of the $500,000 be allocated to CV-SALTS Implementation

Outreach

ii. General Project support, meeting attendance and reporting - $10,000

iii. Budget based on approximately $25,000 for the video and $35,000 for other

materials and support efforts

iv. Consultant team to provide support based on the approved agreement to

complete tasks

v. Budgets will be maximums and may be supplemented by grantee or other CV-

SALTS participants by agreement

C. Deliverables

i. Draft materials, examples in A iii. for review, Video Script, and other materials

ii. Final Draft and Final for Printing Submittals with Original artwork/files

iii. Final Draft and Final Video in formats for web and local play via DVD

iv. Brief Summary of efforts and next steps

D. Schedule

i. Schedule in grant should be 2 years with most efforts occurring in the first year,

but may be initiated somewhat after the initial grant begins

ii. If not all funds are used in the initial implementation the contract may be

suspended until needed for later phases of work

iii. Final report and all materials should be submitted within 3 years

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar

1 2 3 Light Red conflicts

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Reginal Board Workshop/Hearing

5 1 2 3 4 9 1 2 3 4

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 10 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wed/Thurs 4th or 3rd

2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Policy Related Meetings

3 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Policy or Admin Calls

4 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 26 27 28 13 26 27 28 29 30 31

5 29 30 31

Yellow Salty 5

4 5 6

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Lower San Joaquin

13 1 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 22 1 2 3 TAC Meeting

14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Regional Board Presentation ____

17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 22 28 29 30 31 26 25 26 27 28 29 30

18 30 Wednesday Meetings are DRAFT

May be held by Webinar or

7 8 9 in person in Sacramento half day

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

26 1 31 1 2 3 4 5 35 1 2

27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 32 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 36 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 33 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 37 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

29 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 34 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 38 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 35 27 28 29 30 31 39 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

31 30 31

10 11 12


44 1 2 3 4 48 1 2

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 49 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 46 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 50 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

42 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 47 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

43 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 48 26 27 28 29 30 52 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

44 29 30 31 53 31

2017

July August September

October November December

Notes/Key

January February March

April May June

10/17/2017

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Meeting Calendar

1 2 3 Light Red conflicts


1 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 1 2 3 9 1 2 3

2 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Third Thursdays Where possible

3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Executive Committee Meetings

4 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 8 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 12 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Policy or Admin Calls

5 28 29 30 31 9 25 26 27 28 13 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Yellow Salty 5

Regional Board Worshops/Hearings

TAC Meeting

4 5 6 PEOC Committee


18 1 2 3 4 5 22 1 2

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 23 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

17 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 27 28 29 30 31 26 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

18 29 30

7 8 9


31 1 2 3 4 35 1

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 36 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

28 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 33 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 37 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

29 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 34 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

30 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 35 26 27 28 29 30 31 39 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

31 29 30 31 40 30

10 11 12


40 1 2 3 4 5 6 44 1 2 3 48 1

41 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 45 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 49 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

42 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 46 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 50 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

43 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 47 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 51 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

44 28 29 30 31 48 25 26 27 28 29 30 52 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

53 30 31

Notes/Key

January February March

April May June

PRELIMINARY

September

October November December

2018

July August

11/3/2017

PACKAGE

CV-SALTS Executive Committee Meeting

November 9, 2017

Example: Kings Subbasin Domestic Well Depths Compared to Upper Zone Depths

Kings Subbasin and Adjacent Basins

Domestic Well Density by Section

WCR data in DWR databaseSection approx. 1-mile x 1-mile

Domestic Well Depths: Kings Subbasin

All Domestic Wells

10% of Domestic Wells

Avg. Domestic Well Depth by Section

Spring 2017 Depth to Groundwater

DWR: Assumes contoured data represent unconfined to uppermost semi-confined aquifers

Depth to Bottom of Domestic Wells(Depth Avg. by Section)

>100-150

>150-200>200-300

Upper Zone Calculation Datasets

From: LSCE and LWA. 2016. Updated Groundwater Quality Analysis and High Resolution Mapping for Central Valley Salt and Nitrate Management Plan

0’

200’

Upper Zone Conceptual CartoonEx

amp

le D

epth

Farm Virtual Well

Urban PWS

Rural PWS

DDW Public Supply

Domestic Well

Interpolated Domestic Bottom of Perf Depth

Interpolated Urban PWS Top Perf Depth

Interpolated Rural PWS Top Perf

Interpolated DDW Public Supply Top Perf Depth

Interpolated Virtual Farm Top Perf Depth

Depth to Bottom of Upper Zone

>200-300

>150-200

Conceptual Schematic: Depth of Domestic Wells and Bottom of Upper Zone

DWR Definition of “Aquifer”

“An aquifer is a body of rock or sediment that yields significant amounts of groundwater to wells or springs. In many definitions, the word “significant” is replaced by “economic.” As discussed previously, coarse-grained sediments such as sands and gravels deposited in alluvial or marine environments tend to function as the primary aquifers in California.”

DWR Bulletin 118: California’s Groundwater Update 2003.

Estimation of 10% of Saturated Portionof the Upper Zone

10% of Saturated Thickness of Upper Zone; Most of CV ~ 5-20 ft thickness from top of Water Table; the thinner this is, the less likely it is an “aquifer”

Thickness of Saturated Portion of Upper Zone: Most of CV ~100-200 ft

cv-salts executive committee meeting 2017 cv-salts mee… · cv-salts committee rosters voters...

Documents