CONSOLIDATED TOXIC HOT SPOTS CLEANUP … 29, 2 003 June 1999. Table of Contents ... Chap. 269) the...

State of California

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

CONSOLIDATED TOXIC HOT SPOTS CLEANUP PLAN

VOLUME I: POLICY, TOXIC HOT SPOT LISTS AND FINDINGS

DRAFT FINAL FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT DOCUMENTAPPENDIX A

August 29, 2003June 1999

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................5

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................5

POLICY FOR WATER QUALITY CONTROL...................................................................................6

REMEDIATION (IF POTENTIAL DISCHARGER IDENTIFIED) ..............................................................................6REMEDIATION (IN ABSENCE OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGER) ............................................................................7

Funding Programs................................................................................................................................7Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants .........................................................................7Wetlands Grants ..............................................................................................................................................7State Revolving Funds Loan Program...............................................................................................................7Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program.......................................................................................778State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account (Cleanup and Abatement Fund) ..................................8CALFED .........................................................................................................................................................8Supplemental Environmental Projects..............................................................................................................8Mass-based Permit Offset System (Trading Credits) ........................................................................................8

REMEDIATION IN SAN DIEGO BAY ...............................................................................................................9TOXIC HOT SPOT PREVENTION....................................................................................................................9

Waste Discharge Requirement Reevaluation Guidance.......................................................................10REMOVING TOXIC HOT SPOTS FROM THE PLAN .................................................................................. 111112

TOXIC HOT SPOT IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING ................................................................12

DEFINITION USED TO IDENTIFY CANDIDATE AND KNOWN TOXIC HOT SPOTS ..............................................12Candidate Toxic Hot Spot........................................................................................................... 121213Known Toxic Hot Spot ................................................................................................................ 151516

RANKING CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................16Human Health Impacts .......................................................................................................................16Aquatic Life Impacts...........................................................................................................................16Water Quality Objectives....................................................................................................................17Areal Extent of Toxic Hot Spot ...........................................................................................................17Natural Remediation Potential ...........................................................................................................17Overall Ranking .................................................................................................................................17

BENEFITS OF REMEDIATION .........................................................................................................17

KNOWN TOXIC HOT SPOTS............................................................................................................19

MITIGATION NECESSARY TO AVOID THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OFREMEDIATION ...................................................................................................................................19

FINDINGS..................................................................................................................................... 414140

KNOWN TOXIC HOT SPOTS................................................................................................................. 414140SCOPE OF ACTIONS AND COSTS .......................................................................................................... 414140IMPLEMENTATION/FUNDING PROGRAMS............................................................................................ 424241NEED FOR A PROGRAM TO FUND REMEDIATION................................................................................... 424241

FINAL

5

Consolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan

Volume I: Policy, Toxic Hot Spot Lists and Findings

IntroductionThe State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) andthe Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) arerequired to (1) identify and characterize toxic hot spots,(2) plan for the cleanup or other appropriate remedial ormitigating action at the sites, and (3) prevent the creation ofnew toxic hot spots and the further pollution of existing hotspots (Water Code Section 13392). Toxic hot spots havebeen identified in California’s enclosed bays, estuaries andcoastal waters. The SWRCB adopted guidance in 1998 onthe development of the Regional Toxic Hot Spots CleanupPlans (Regional Plans). Each of tThe Regional cleanup -pPlans have been incorporated into the Consolidated ToxicHot Spots Cleanup Plan (Consolidated Plan).

As required by Water Code Section 13394, the SWRCB hasdeveloped this Consolidated Statewide Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plan that identifies and ranks known toxic hotspots. This plan also presents descriptions of toxic hotspots, actions necessary to remediate sites, the benefits ofremediation, and a range of remediation costs. This plan isapplicable, in its entirety, to point and nonpoint sourcedischarges to the waters of the State that can be reasonablydetermined by the RWQCBs to contribute to or cause thepollution at toxic hot spots.

This Consolidated Plan contains two volumes: Volume Icontains the policy statements, definitions and criteria torank sites, the list of known toxic hot spots, a summary ofthe actions planned for high priority known toxic hot spots,and findings; and Volume II contains the Regional ToxicHot Spots Cleanup Plans.

BackgroundWater Code Section 13394 requires that the SWRCB andeach RWQCB complete toxic hot spots cleanup plans.Each Ccleanup Pplan must include: (1) a priority listing ofall toxic hot spots covered by the Ccleanup Pplan; (2) adescription of each toxic hot spot including acharacterization of the pollutants present at the site; (3) anassessment of the most likely source or sources of

FINAL

6

pollutants; (4) an estimate of the total costs to implementthe Ccleanup Pplan; (5) an estimate of the costs that can berecovered from parties responsible for the discharge ofpollutants that have accumulated in sediments; (6) apreliminary assessment of the actions required to remedy orrestore a toxic hot spot; (7) a two-year expenditureschedule identifying State funds needed to implement theCcleanup Pplan; and (8) for the SWRCB, findings on theneed to establish a toxic hot spots cleanup program.

Policy for Water Quality ControlIn furtherance of legislative intent set forth in Section 13390of Division 7 of the California Water Code (Stats. 1989,Chap. 269) the SWRCB hereby finds and declares thatprotection of the quality of the enclosed bays, estuaries andcoastal waters for use and enjoyment by the people of theState requires the implementation of remedial actions thatprovide protection of existing and future beneficial uses andthat these actions be implemented through a plan forremedial action at toxic hot spots.

The provisions of the Consolidated Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plan are intended to establish principles andguidance to protect and improve the quality of the enclosedbays, estuaries and coastal waters of the State fromdischarges of hazardous substances in accordance with theprovisions of Chapter 5.6 of the California Water Code.

Remediation (if Potential Discharger Identified)The RWQCBs shall implement the remediation portions ofthis Consolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan(Volume II) to the extent that responsible parties areidentified and funds are available and allocated for thispurpose.

The RWQCBs shall use their existing authorities to issueand revise waste discharge requirements (WDRs), issue andimplement enforcement actions pursuant to existingPpolicies, including but not limited to, the Water QualityEnforcement Policy and SWRCB Resolution No. 92-49(as amended on April 21, 1994 and October 2, 1996). Tothe extent possible, the RWQCBs shall encourage potentialdischargers to address known toxic hot spots throughvoluntary implementation of corrective actions.

FINAL

7

Remediation (in Absence of Potential Discharger)When no potential discharger is identified, the RWQCBsshall seek funding from available sources to remediate thesite.

Funding ProgramsThere are several federal and State funding programscurrently in place that RWQCBs shall evaluate as potentialfunding sources to remediate toxic hot spots. These includethe following:

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants

CWA Section 319(h) provides grant funds for projectsdirected at the management of nonpoint source pollution.High priority projects are considered those which implementspecified nonpoint source management practices underSection 319 requirements, and projects which addressnonpoint source problems in waters listed pursuant to CWASection 303(d) as water quality limited segments.

Wetlands Grants

CWA Section 104(b) provides funds for wetlandrestoration. The focus of these grants is wetland protection,but wetland restoration can be included when it is part of anoverall wetland protection program. Priorities for fundinginclude watershed projects to address watershed protectionwhich have a substantial wetlands component in a holistic,integrated manner, and development of assessment andmonitoring information.

State Revolving Funds Loan Program

The State Revolving Funds Loan Program provides fundingfor the construction of publicly-owned treatment works, fornonpoint source mitigation programs and projects, and forthe development and implementation of estuaryconservation and management programs. The loan interestrate is set at one-half the rate of the most recent sale of aState general obligation bond.

Agricultural Drainage Management Loan Program

The State Agricultural Drainage Management LoanProgram funds are available for feasibility studies and thedesign and construction of agricultural drainage watermanagement projects. The project must remove, reduce, ormitigate pollution resulting from agricultural drainage.

FINAL

8

State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account (Cleanupand Abatement Fund)

The Cleanup and Abatement Fund (Water CodeSection 13440 et seq.) can be used by the SWRCB to payfor cleaning up waste or abating the waste effects on watersof the State. RWQCBs may apply for these funds if, amongother things, the RWQCB does not have adequate resourcesbudgeted for this activity.

CALFED

The CALFED Bay-Delta Program was initiated in 1995 toaddress environmental and water management problemsassociated with the Bay-Delta system, an intricate web ofwaterways created at the junction of the San Francisco Bayand the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and thewatershed that feeds them. The CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram is carrying out a process to achieve broadagreement on comprehensive solutions for problems in theBay-Delta System.

Supplemental Environmental Projects

The RWQCB may impose administrative civil liabilityorders on an alleged violator for discharging waste, forfailure to furnish or furnishing false technical or monitoringreports, for various cleanup and abatement violations, andother issues. These orders are based on the violation of aWDR, a NPDES permit, or a prohibition in a water qualitycontrol plan. As part of this process the RWQCB maydirect dischargers to provide funding for a SupplementalEnvironmental Project.

Mass-based Permit Offset System (Trading Credits)

A mass-based permit offset system is a tool used to ensurethat the largest controllable ongoing sources of pollutantsand most cost-effective approaches are used to reduce thedischarge of pollutants. An offset system provides anincrease in flexibility for dischargers with potentialcompliance problems or for groups that wish to developcredit for anticipated offset of future loads associated withfuture population growth or increase in industrialdischarges.

In using this approach, the RWQCBs shall consider thefollowing factors: (1) application of the system to sites thatdo not have a responsible discharger identified,

FINAL

9

(2) bioaccumulation of pollutants at sites near discharges,(3) toxicity at sites where pollutants are allowed at higherconcentrations, and (4) the chemical form of the pollutantdischarged.

Remediation in San Diego BaySan Diego Bay is one of the most precious economic andenvironmental resources in California and there is significantpublic concern about all the toxic hot spots identified in theBay.

The San Diego RWQCB shall develop the characterizationand remediation portions of the cleanup plan for themoderate priority known toxic hot spots identified in thisPlan. In developing the revised cleanup plan the San DiegoRWQCB shall (1) use the Water Quality Control Policy forGuidance on the Development of Regional Toxic Hot SpotCleanup Plans and (2) submit a revised Regional Planwithin one year of the effective date of the ConsolidatedPlan.

To the extent that funding is available, the RWQCB shallinitiate remediation or require potential dischargers toremediate each known toxic hot spot in San Diego Bay.

Toxic Hot Spot PreventionIn the process of developing and implementing strategies toremediate toxic hot spots related to both sediment andwater, the RWQCBs shall focus on approaches that rely onexisting State and federal programs to address identifiedtoxic hot spots. In addressing prevention activities for pointand nonpoint sources of pollution, the RWQCBs shall:

1. Consider use of any established prevention tools such as(a) voluntary programs, (b) interactive cooperativeprograms, and (c) regulatory programs, individually orin any combination that will result in an effective toxichot spot prevention strategy. The RWQCBs shallconsider site-specific and pollutant-specific strategies toaddress the toxic hot spot including, but not limited to:pollution prevention audits, studies to specificallyidentify sources of pollutants, total maximum daily loaddevelopment, watershed management approaches,pretreatment, recycle and reuse, revised effluent

FINAL

10

limitations, prohibitions, implementation of bestmanagement practices, etc.

2. Promote a watershed management protection approachfocused on hydrologically defined areas (watersheds)rather than areas defined by political boundaries(counties, districts, municipalities), that take intoaccount all waters, surface, ground, inland, and coastaland address point and nonpoint sources of pollution thatmay have influence or has been identified to haveinfluenced the identified toxic hot spots. Link thecleanup plan to implementation of the WatershedManagement Initiative and the SWRCB Strategic Plan.

3. Encourage the participation and input of,interdisciplinary groups of interested parties (includingall potential dischargers) that are able to cross overgeographical and political boundaries to developeffective solutions for preventing toxic hot spots.

4. Use prevention strategies that provide enough flexibilityto be used as watershed protection plans where thereare none established or have the ability to join with awatershed protection plan that is already beingimplemented to address the toxic hot spot. Solutionsdeveloped shall also be developed for, and applied atsites where it will do the most prevention and where itwill be the most cost-effective at mitigating andpreventing toxic hot spots at a watershed level.

Waste Discharge Requirement Reevaluation GuidanceIn order to prevent the further pollution or creation ofknown toxic hot spots, RWQCBs shall reevaluate WDRs incompliance with Water Code Section 13395. Thereevaluation shall consist of (1) an assessment of the WDRsthat may influence the creation or further pollution of theknown toxic hot spot, (2) an assessment of which WDRsneed to be modified to improve environmental conditions atthe known toxic hot spot, and (3) a schedule for completionof any WDR modifications deemed appropriate.

When revising WDRs associated with known toxic hotspots, the RWQCBs shall comply with the provisions ofWater Code Sections 13395 to the extent this Sectionapplies. The RWQCB shall acknowledge in the WDR that

FINAL

11

the discharge may contribute to the pollution present at thetoxic hot spot listed in the Consolidated Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plan.

RWQCBs shall begin reevaluation of WDRs associated withhigh priority known toxic hot spots within 120 days afterfinal approval of the Consolidated Toxic Hot Spots CleanupPlan. WDR reevaluation will be completed for all knowntoxic hot spots in ranked order. The RWQCBs shall submita priority list to the SWRCB presenting the reevaluation asfollows:

1. The list of WDRs associated with each known toxic hotspot that can reasonably be expected to cause orcontribute to the creation and maintenance of the knowntoxic hot spot.

2. An assessment of the need to revise the WDR toimprove the quality of the known toxic hot spot.

3. A schedule for completion of the needed WDR revisions.

Each RWQCB shall submit the priority list for high prioritytoxic hot spots within six months after final approval of theConsolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan. The prioritylist for moderate and low priority known toxic hot spotsshall be submitted within one year of final approval of theConsolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan.

Reevaluation, as used in this plan and in Water CodeSection 13395, does not mean the RWQCBs must reviseWDRs associated with known toxic hot spots.

Removing Toxic Hot Spots from the PlanA site may be removed from the known toxic hot spot listand other portions of this Consolidated Plan if the SWRCBdetermines that the site has been adequately remediated,was inappropriately listed as a toxic hot spot, or no longerqualifies as a toxic hot spot (as defined). The process forremoving a site from the Consolidated Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plan is as follows:

1. A petition shall be submitted to the SWRCB to remove asite from the Consolidated Toxic Hot Spots CleanupPlan. This petition shall provide:

FINAL

12

• The reason for site delisting• Documentation of investigations performed to

demonstrate the site is no longer a toxic hot spot(post-remediation monitoring)

• Documentation of all remediation actions taken• Documentation of the likelihood the toxic hot spot

will be prevented from reoccurring

2. If the petition is submitted by a discharger, the SWRCBshall seek a recommendation on the petition by theappropriate RWQCB. If the petition is approved by theSWRCB, the site shall be removed from the toxic hotspot list and other portions of the Consolidated ToxicHot Spots Cleanup Plan.

Toxic Hot Spot Identification and Ranking

Definition Used to Identify Candidate and Known Toxic Hot SpotsCandidate and known toxic hot spots are locations (sites inwaters of the State) in enclosed bays, estuaries or the ocean.Dischargers (e.g., publicly owned treatment works,industrial facilities, power generating facilities, agriculturalland, storm drains, etc.) are not toxic hot spots.

Pesticide residues should not be considered under theBay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program (BPTCP) ifthey are detected in the water column in a pattern ofinfrequent pulses moving by the sampling location. Suchdetections will be addressed using cooperative approachessuch as the Management Agency Agreement between theSWRCB and the Department of Pesticide Regulation, theNPS Management Plan, and existing authorities includingthe Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and CleanWater Act.

{PRIVATE }Candidate Toxic Hot Spot{tc \l 3 "Candidate Toxic HotSpot"}

A site meeting any one or more of the following conditionsis considered to be a "candidate" toxic hot spot.

1. The site exceeds water or sediment quality objectivesfor toxic pollutants that are contained in appropriatewater quality control plans or exceeds water quality

FINAL

13

criteria promulgated by the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (U.S. EPA).

This finding requires chemical measurement of water orsediment, or measurement of toxicity using tests andobjectives stipulated in water quality control plans.Determination of a toxic hot spot using this findingshould rely on recurrent measures over time (at leasttwo separate sampling dates). Suitable time intervalsbetween measurements must be determined.

2. The water or sediment exhibits toxicity associated withtoxic pollutants that is significantly different from thetoxicity observed at reference sites (i.e., when comparedto the lower confidence interval of the referenceenvelope or, in the absence of a reference envelope, issignificantly toxic as compared to controls (using at-test) and the response is less than 90 percent of theminimum significant difference for each specific testorganism), based on toxicity tests acceptable to theSWRCB or the RWQCBs.

To determine whether toxicity exists, recurrentmeasurements (at least two separate sampling dates)should demonstrate an effect. Appropriate referenceand control measures must be included in the toxicitytesting. The methods acceptable to and used by theBPTCP may include some toxicity test protocols notreferenced in water quality control plans (e.g., theBPTCP Quality Assurance Project Plan). Toxicpollutants should be present in the media atconcentrations sufficient to cause or contribute to toxicresponses in order to satisfy this condition.

3. The tissue toxic pollutant levels of organisms collectedfrom the site exceed levels established by the UnitedStates Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for theprotection of human health, or the National Academy ofSciences (NAS) for the protection of human health orwildlife. When a health advisory against theconsumption of edible resident non-migratory organismshas been issued by Office of Environmental HealthHazard Assessment (OEHHA) or Department of HealthServices (DHS), on a site or water body, the site orwater body is automatically classified a "candidate"

FINAL

14

toxic hot spot if the chemical contaminant is associatedwith sediment or water at the site or water body.

Acceptable tissue concentrations are measured either asmuscle tissue (preferred) or whole body residues.Residues in liver tissue alone are not considered asuitable measure for candidate toxic hot spotdesignation. Animals can either be deployed (if aresident species) or collected from resident populations.Recurrent measurements in tissue are required. Residuelevels established for one species for the protection ofhuman health can be applied to any other consumablespecies.

Shellfish: Except for existing information, eachsampling episode should include a minimum of threereplicates. The value of interest is the average value ofthe three replicates. Each replicate should be comprisedof at least 15 individuals. For existing State MusselWatch information related to organic pollutants, a singlecomposite sample (20-100 individuals), may be usedinstead of the replicate measures. When recurrentmeasurements exceed one of the levels referred toabove, the site is considered a candidate toxic hot spot.

Fin-fish: A minimum of three replicates is necessary.The number of individuals needed will depend on thesize and availability of the animals collected; although aminimum of five animals per replicate is recommended.The value of interest is the average of the threereplicates. Animals of similar age and reproductivestage should be used.

4. Impairment measured in the environment is associatedwith toxic pollutants found in resident individuals.

Impairment means reduction in growth, reduction inreproductive capacity, abnormal development,histopathological abnormalities. Each of these measuresmust be made in comparison to a reference conditionwhere the endpoint is measured in the same species andtissue is collected from an unpolluted reference site.Each of the tests shall be acceptable to the SWRCB orthe RWQCBs.

FINAL

15

Growth Measures: Reductions in growth can beaddressed using suitable bioassay acceptable to theSWRCB or RWQCBs or through measurements of fieldpopulations.

Reproductive Measures: Reproductive measures mustclearly indicate reductions in viability of eggs oroffspring, or reductions in fecundity. Suitable measuresinclude: pollutant concentrations in tissue, sediment, orwater which have been demonstrated in laboratory teststo cause reproductive impairment, or significantdifferences in viability or development of eggs betweenreference and test sites.

Abnormal Development: Abnormal development can bedetermined using measures of physical or behavioraldisorders or aberrations. Evidence that the disorder canbe caused by toxic pollutants, in whole or in part, mustbe available.

Histopathology: Abnormalities representing distinctadverse effects, such as carcinomas or tissue necrosis,must be evident. Evidence that toxic pollutants arecapable of causing or contributing to the diseasecondition must also be available.

5. Significant degradation in biological populations and/orcommunities associated with the presence of elevatedlevels of toxic pollutants.

This condition requires that the diminished numbers ofspecies or individuals of a single species (whencompared to a reference site) are associated withconcentrations of toxic pollutants. The analysis shouldrely on measurements from multiple stations. Careshould be taken to ensure that at least one site is notdegraded so that a suitable comparison can be made.

{PRIVATE }Known Toxic Hot Spot{tc \l 3 "Known Toxic HotSpot"}

A site meeting any one or more of the conditions necessaryfor the designation of a "candidate" toxic hot spot that hasgone through a full SWRCB and RWQCB hearing process,is considered to be a "known" toxic hot spot. A site will beconsidered a "candidate" toxic hot spot until approved by

FINAL

16

the SWRCB as a “known” toxic hot spot in theConsolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan.

Ranking CriteriaA value for each criterion described below shall bedeveloped provided appropriate information exists orestimates can be made. Any criterion for which noinformation exists shall be assigned a value of “No Action”.The RWQCB shall create a matrix of the scores of theranking criteria. The RWQCBs shall determine which sitesare “High” priority based on the- five general criteria(below) keeping in mind the value of the water body. TheRWQCBs shall provide the justification or reason a rankwas assigned if the value is an estimate based on bestprofessional judgment.

Human Health ImpactsHuman Health Advisory issued for consumption ofnon-migratory aquatic life from the site (assign a “High”);Tissue residues in aquatic organisms exceed FDA/DHSaction level or U.S. EPA screening levels (“Moderate”).

Aquatic Life ImpactsFor aquatic life, site ranking shall be based on an analysis ofthe substantial information available. The measures thatshall be considered are: sediment chemistry, sedimenttoxicity, biological field assessments (including benthiccommunity analysis), water toxicity, toxicity identificationevaluations (TIEs), and bioaccumulation.

Stations with hits in any two of the biological measures ifassociated with high chemistry, assign a “High” priority. Ahit in one of the measures associated with high chemistry isassigned “moderate”, and high sediment or water chemistryonly shall be assigned “low”. In analyzing the substantialinformation available, RWQCBs should take intoconsideration that impacts related to biological fieldassessments (including benthic community structure) are ofmore importance than other measures of impact.

FINAL

17

Water Quality Objectives2

Any chemistry data used for ranking under this section shallbe no more than 10 years old, and shall have been analyzedwith appropriate analytical methods and quality assurance.

Water quality objective or water quality criterion:Exceeded regularly (assign a “High” priority), occasionallyexceeded (“Moderate”), infrequently exceeded (“Low”).

Areal Extent of Toxic Hot SpotSelect one of the following values: More than 10 acres,1 to 10 acres, less than 1 acre.

Natural Remediation PotentialSelect one of the following values: Site is unlikely toimprove without intervention (“High”), site may or may notimprove without intervention (“Moderate”), site is likely toimprove without intervention (“Low”).

Overall RankingThe RWQCB shall list the overall ranking for the candidatetoxic hot spot. Based on the interpretation and analysis ofthe five previous ranking criteria, ranks shall be establishedby the RWQCBs as “high”, “moderate” or “low.”

Benefits of RemediationIn developing the Regional Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plansthe RWQCBs listed the qualitative benefits that will bederived by remediating toxic hot spots. The list of possiblebenefits of remediation are presented in Table 1. Thebeneficial use improved is listed in the summary of theRegional Cleanup Plans (Table 3).

TABLE 1. BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF REMEDIATION

Beneficialeffect

Values quantifying these beneficial effects Beneficial useaffected

1 Water quality objectives to be used are found in RWQCB Basin Plans or the California Ocean Plan(depending on which plan applies to the water body being addressed). Where a Basin Plan contains amore stringent value than the statewide plan, the regional water quality objective will be used.

FINAL

18

Lower toxicity in planktonic and benthicorganisms

Greater survival of organisms in toxicitytests.

MAR, EST

Undegraded benthic community Species diversity and abundancecharacteristic of undegraded conditions.

MAR, EST

Lower concentrations of pollutants in water Water column chemical concentration thatwill not contribute to possible human healthimpacts.

MIGR, SPWN,EST, MAR, REC 1,REC 2

Lower concentrations of pollutants in fishand shellfish tissue

Lower tissue concentrations of chemicalsthat could contribute to possible humanhealth and ecological impacts.

MAR, EST, REC 1,COMM

Area can be used for sport and commercialfishing.

Anglers catch more fish. Impact oncatches and net revenues of fishingoperations increase.

REC 1, COMM

Area can be used for shellfish harvesting oraquaculture

Jobs and production generated by theseactivities increase. Net revenues from theseactivities are enhanced.

SHELL, AQUA

Improved conditions for seabirds and otherpredators

Increase in populations. Value to public ofmore abundant wildlife.

WILD, MIGR,RARE

More abundant fish populations Increase in populations. Value to public ofmore abundant wildlife.

MAR, EST

Commercial catches increase Impact on catches and net revenues offishing operations.

COMM

Recreational catches increase, moreopportunities for angling

Increased catches and recreational visitor-days.

REC 1

Improved ecosystem conditions Species diversity and abundancecharacteristic of undegraded conditions.

EST, MAR

Improved aesthetics Value to public of improved aesthetics. Insome cases, estimates of the value to thepublic of improved conditions may beavailable from surveys.

REC 2

More abundant wildlife, more opportunitiesfor wildlife viewing

Impact on wildlife populations. Impact onrecreational visitor-days.

MAR, WILD,RARE, REC 2

FINAL

19

Known Toxic Hot SpotsThe RWQCBs have used the definition of toxic hot spots toidentify candidate toxic hot spots and have used the rankingcriteria to identify the highest priority sites for remedialaction. The list in Table 2 is the list of known toxic hotspots in California’s enclosed bays, estuaries and coastalwaters. The general locations of the known toxic hot spotsare presented in Figure 1.

A detailed list of the known toxic hot spots for each regionis presented in Volume II of the Consolidated Toxic HotSpots Cleanup Plan.

The remedial actions, benefits of remediation and estimatedremediation costs for the high priority toxic hot spots arelisted in Table 3. More specific information on sitecharacterization, benefits of remediation, proposed actionand costs are presented in the Regional Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plans (Volume II).

Mitigation Necessary to Avoid the Potential Environmental Impacts ofRemediation

The provisions of the Consolidated Toxic Hot SpotsCleanup Plan do not relieve the RWQCBs from complyingwith CEQA when requiring site-specific projects becompleted or when amending their Basin Plans toincorporate the results of their planning efforts called for inthe Consolidated Plan. Mitigation measures are presentedin Table 4. These mitigation measures shall be consideredby the RWQCBs to lessen or avoid reduce the potentialenvironmental impact of a site-specific project.

The mitigation measures presented in this Consolidated Planaddress potentially significant adverse impacts on a broad,Statewide basis. These mitigation measures do not replacethe need for site-specific measures or a site-specific analysisof environmental impacts. The mitigation measures in theConsolidated Plan are intended to focus the analysis, whenpossible, on the resources that are likely to be affected whensite-specific projects are implemented.

FINAL

20

TABLE 2: KNOWN TOXIC HOT SPOTS

Rank Site Identification Reason for ListingDefinition trigger Pollutants

High Cañada de la HuertaShell Hercules GasPlant Site

Aquatic Life Concerns -Sediment and watertoxicity, sedimentchemistry,bioaccumulation,Water Quality Concerns -violations of Basin Plan andOcean Plan objectives.

PCBs

High Delta Estuary, CacheCreek watershedincluding Clear lake

Human health impacts Mercury

High Delta Estuary Aquatic life impacts Diazinon

High Delta Estuary -Morrison Creek,Mosher Slough, 5 MileSlough, MormonSlough & CalaverasRiver

Aquatic life impacts Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos

High Delta Estuary - UlatisCreek, Paradise Cut,French Camp & DuckSlough

Aquatic life impacts Chlorpyrifos

High Humboldt Bay EurekaWaterfront H Street

Bioassay toxicity Lead, Silver, Antimony,Zinc, Methoxychlor,PAHs

High Los Angeles InnerHarbor DominguezChannel, ConsolidatedSlip

Human health, aquatic lifeimpacts

DDT, PCBs, PAH,Cadmium, Copper, Lead,Mercury, Zinc, Dieldrin,Chlordane

High Los Angeles Outer Human health, aquatic life DDT, PCBs, Copper

FINAL

21


Harbor Cabrillo Pier impacts

High Lower Newport BayRhine Channel

Sediment toxicity, exceedsobjectives

Arsenic, Copper, Lead,Mercury, Zinc, DDE,PCB, TBT

High McGrath Lake Sediment toxicity DDT, Chlordane, Dieldrin,Toxaphene, Endosulfan

High Moss Landing Harborand Tributaries

Aquatic life and humanhealth concerns - Sedimentchemistry, toxicity,bioaccumulation andexceedances of NAS and orFDA guidelines

Pesticides, PCBs, Nickel,Chromium, TBT

High Mugu Lagoon/Calleguas Creek tidalprism, Eastern Arm,Main Lagoon, WesternArm,

Aquatic life impacts DDT, PCBs, metals,Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos

High San Diego BaySeventh St. ChannelPaleta Creek, NavalStation

Sediment toxicity andbenthic community impacts

Chlordane, DDT, PAHsand Total Chemistry2

High San Francisco BayCastro Cove

Aquatic life impacts Mercury, Selenium,PAHs, Dieldrin

High San Francisco BayEntire Bay

Human health impacts Mercury, PCBs, Dieldrin,Chlordane, DDT, DioxinSite listing was based onMercury and PCB healthadvisory

High San Francisco BayIslais Creek

Aquatic life impacts PCBs, chlordane,dieldrin, endosulfansulfate, PAHs,

2 The total toxic chemical concentrations for a station were was calculated as follows: The sum of individualERMs (or PELs) was divided by the number of chemicals analyzed for which ERMs (or PELs) were known. The"average" ERM (or PEL), known as the Effects Range Median Quotient or ERMQ (or Probable Effects LevelQuotient or PELQ) was compared to the "threshold" ERMQs (or PELQs) calculated to be 0.85 X ERMQ (or 1.29 XPELQ). If a threshold quotient was equaled or exceeded, the station was assumed to have a total chemistry hit

FINAL

22


anthropogenicallyenriched H2S and NH3

High San Francisco BayMission Creek

Aquatic life impacts Silver, Chromium,Copper Mercury, Lead,Zinc, Chlordane,Chlorpyrifos, Dieldrin,Mirex, PCBs, PAHs,anthropogenicallyenriched H2S and NH3

High San Francisco BayPeyton Slough

Aquatic life impacts Silver, Cadmium,Copper, Selenium, Zinc,PCBs, Chlordane,ppDDE, Pyrene

High San Francisco BayPoint Potrero/Richmond Harbor

Human health Mercury, PCBs, Copper,Lead, Zinc

High San Francisco BayStege Marsh

Aquatic life impacts Arsenic, Copper,Mercury, Selenium, Zinc,chlordane, dieldrin,ppDDE, dacthal,endosulfan 1, endosulfansulfate,dichlorobenzophenone,heptachlor epoxide,hexachlorobenzene,mirex, oxidiazon,toxaphene and PCBs

High San Joaquin River atCity of Stockton

Exceedances of waterquality objective

Dissolved oxygen

High Santa Monica BayPalos Verdes Shelf

Human health, aquatic lifeimpacts

DDT, PCBs

Moderate Anaheim Bay,Naval Reserve

Sediment toxicity Chlordane, DDE

FINAL

23


Moderate Ballona CreekEntrance Channel

Sediment toxicity DDT, zinc, lead,Chlordane, dieldrin,chlorpyrifos

Moderate Bodega Bay-10006Mason’s Marina

Bioassay toxicity Cadmium, Copper, TBT,PAH

Moderate Bodega Bay-10028Porto Bodega Marina

Bioassay toxicity Copper, lead, Mercury,Zinc, TBT, DDT, PCB,PAH

Moderate Delta EstuaryDelta

Aquatic life impacts Chlordane, Dieldrin,Lindane, Heptachlor,Total PCBs, PAH &DDT

Moderate Delta EstuaryDelta

Human health impacts Chlordane, Dieldrin,Total DDT, PCBs,Endosulfan, Toxaphene

Moderate Delta EstuarySmith Canal, Mosher& 5-Mile, Sloughs &Calaveras River

Exceedance of waterquality objective

Dissolved oxygen

Moderate Los Angeles RiverEstuary

Sediment toxicity DDT, PAH, Chlordane

Moderate Upper Newport BayNarrows

Sediment toxicity, exceedswater quality objectives

Chlordane, Zinc, DDE

Moderate Lower Newport BayNewport Island

Exceeds water qualityobjectives

Copper, Lead, Mercury,Zinc, Chlordane, DDE,PCB, TBT

Moderate Marina del Rey Sediment toxicity DDT, PCB, Copper,Mercury, Nickel, Lead,Zinc, Chlordane

Moderate Monterey Harbor Aquatic life impacts,sediment toxicity

PAHs, Cu, Zn,Toxaphene, PCBs,Tributyltin

FINAL

24


Moderate San Diego BayBetween “B” Street &Broadway Piers

Benthic community impacts PAHs, Total Chemistry

Moderate San Diego BayCentral Bay SwitzerCreek

Sediment toxicity Chlordane, Lindane,DDT, Total Chemistry

Moderate San Diego BayChollas Creek

Benthic community impacts Chlordane, TotalChemistry

Moderate San Diego BayFoot of Evans &Sampson Streets

Benthic CommunityImpacts

PCBs, Antimony,Copper, Total Chemistry

Moderate San Francisco BayCentral Basin, SanFrancisco Bay

Aquatic life impacts Mercury, PAHs

Moderate San Francisco BayFruitvale (area in frontof stormdrain)

Aquatic life impacts Chlordane, PCBs

Moderate San Francisco BayOakland Estuary.Pacific Drydock #1(area in front ofstormdrain)

Aquatic life impacts Copper, Lead, Mercury,Zinc, TBT, ppDDE,PCBs, PAHs,Chlorpyrifos, Chlordane,Dieldrin, Mirex

Moderate San Francisco Bay,San Leandro Bay

Aquatic life impacts Mercury, Lead, Selenium,Zinc, PCBs, PAHs, DDT,pesticides

Low Seal Beach NWRNavy Marsh

Sediment toxicity DDE

Low Seal Beach BolsaAvenue NWR

Sediment toxicity Arsenic

Low Bolsa Chica Ecological Sediment toxicity DDE

FINAL

25


Reserve

Low Seal Beach NWR LeftReach

Sediment toxicity DDE

Low Seal Beach NWRMiddle Reach

Sediment toxicity Arsenic

Low Huntington HarborUpper Reach

Sediment toxicity Chlordane, DDE,Chlorpyrifos

FINAL

26

FIGURE 1: HIGH, MODERATE, AND LOW PRIORITY TOXIC HOT SPOTS

FINAL

27

FINAL

28

FINAL

29

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AND COSTS TO ADDRESS HIGH PRIORITY KNOWN TOXIC HOT SPOTS

Site Source Alternative Remedial Actions Estimated Costs toRemediate Site

Benefits ofRemediation

Cañada de laHuerta, ShellHercules Site

Environmental release of PCBsladen fluid used in plant heattransfer treatment process

Continue post-remediationmonitoring program plus possibleadditional excavation and offsitedisposal of polluted sedimentMonitoringSite AssessmentAmended RAPImplementationTotal

$300,000$250,000$50,000

$ 2,000,000$ 2,600,000

COMM(SPORTFISHING),AQUA, WILD,COLD,WARM,RARE

Delta Estuary,Cache Creek

Exports from Placer gold miningregions of the Sierra Nevada;Mercury mining in the CoastRange; Resuspension ofestuarine sediment; Effluent frommunicipal and industrialdischarges to surface waters.

Studies to develop mercurycontrol strategy:1. Fish eating bird & egg studiesplus OEHHA coordination.2. Mercury monitoring in CacheCreek/year (multi year)3. Mine remediation feasibilitystudies4. Estuarine mercury monitoringstudies (multi year)

Grand Total

$335,000

$1,120,000

$150,000

$1,500,000

$3,105,000

COMM andWILD

Delta Estuary, Application of Diazinon as a The RWQCB determined that the $400,000 FY 2002-2003 EST, MIGR,

FINAL

30



Entire Delta dormant orchard spray in theagricultural areas of the CentralValley

pattern of pesticide detectionsobserved from dormant sprayapplications is frequent and meritsconsideration as a high priorityTHS. The RWQCB will regulatepesticides under 303(d) of theClean Water Act and develop aload reduction program by theyear 2005.Develop Basin Plan proposal

R5 Implementation OversightCosts to other entities to overseeCosts to Growers Implementation of practices Regulatory ComplianceContinued practices developmentMonitoring for programeffectiveness

$200,000 FY 2003-2004$180,000-$600,000/yr$0-$300,000/yr

$3-$164/acre$1,000-$4,060/grower/yr$100,000 to $1million/yr$100,000/yr in Delta only

SPWN,WARM,COLD, REC-1, REC-2, andCOMM

Delta Estuary,MorrisonCreek,Mosher, 5-Mile, MormonSlough &CalaverasRiver

Urban runoff The RWQCB determined that thepattern of pesticide detectionsobserved from dormant sprayapplications is frequent and meritsconsideration as a high priorityTHS The RWQCB will regulatepesticides under 303(d) of theClean Water Act and develop aload reduction program by theyear 2005.Rainfall contribution evaluation

$50,000/ yr for 3 years$50,000/yr in urbancreeks$50,000 to $100,000 forcities annuallyNo additional cost$20,000/yr$50,000/yr until 2005$50,000/yr for 2 years

EST, MIGR,SPWN,WARM,COLD, REC-1, REC-2, andCOMM

FINAL

31



Monitoring costs for urbandischargersContinued practices evaluation

Implementation of practicesRegulatory agency oversightDevelop TMDLDevelop Basin Plan amendment (ifneeded)

Delta Estuary,Ulatis Creek,Paradise Cut,French Camp& DuckSlough

Agricultural use The RWQCB determined that thepattern of pesticide detectionsobserved from dormant sprayapplications is frequent and meritsconsideration as a high priorityTHS The RWQCB will regulatepesticides under 303(d) of theClean Water Act and develop aload reduction program by theyear 2005Develop Basin Plan Proposal

R5 Implementation OversightCosts to other entities to overseeCosts to Growers Implementation of practices Regulatory ComplianceContinued practices developmentMonitoring for programeffectiveness

$100,000 FY 2002-2003$100,000 FY 2003-2004$540,000 -$1.8 million/yr$0-$300,000/yr

$2,695-$27,555/grower$555 to $8,200/grower/yr$100,000 to $1million/ yr$100,000/yr in Delta only

EST, MIGR,SPWN,WARM,COLD, REC-1, REC-2, andCOMM

Humboldt Bay, Scrap metal facility including Removal of polluted soils and $500,000 - $5,000,000 NAV, REC 1,

FINAL

32



EurekaWaterfrontH Street

disassembly, incineration, andcrushing of autos. Storage ofmetals, batteries , radiators,metal reclamation from electricaltransformers and misc. refuse.

capping of the site REC 2,COMM(SPORTFISHING),WILD, RARE,MAR, MIGR,SPWN,SHELL, EST,AQUA

Los Angeles/Inner Harbor,DominguezChannel/ConsolidatedSlip

Historical discharges of DDTs,PCBs Metals. Nonpoint sourcessuch as spills, vessel discharges,anti fouling paints and stormdrains. Waste streams fromrefineries may also becontributing.

Dredging and offsite disposal ofpolluted sediments if suitabledisposal site if identified

Treatment of polluted sediments

$1,000,000-$5000,000

$5,000,000-50,000,000

EST (andpossibleimprovementsin otherBeneficialUses)

Los AngelesOuter Harbor,Cabrillo Pier

Historical discharge of DDTs,PCBs. Discharge of wastewatereffluent from Terminal Is. Treat.Plant may contribute. Nonpointsources include ship spills,industrial facilities andstormwater runoff.

Dredging and offsite disposal ofpolluted sediments if suitabledisposal site is identified.Capping.Treatment of polluted sediments

$500,000-$5,000,000

$500,000-$1,000,000$2,500,000-50,000,000

REC 1, REC 2,MAR and EST

LowerNewport Bay,

Boat yard operations Dredging & off-site removalSediment removal $231,800

NAV, REC 1,REC 2,

FINAL

33



Rhine Channel Offsite transportDisposal in a Class I facility

Total

$4,600,000$5,750,000

$10,581,800

COMM,WILD, RARE,SPWN, MAR,SHEL

McGrath Lake Past and present agriculturalactivities

DredgingTreatment of sedimentsSource control measures

$3,000,000-30,000,000$15,000,000-300,000,000

EST

Moss LandingHarbor andTributaries

Past and present agriculturalactivities, River and Streammaintenance activities, shipmaintenance and urban runoff.

RWQCB Program ManagementControl of harbor pollutantsUrban runoff action plan.BMPs to reduce pollution fromagriculture.Monitoring

5 Yr projectedexpenditures $925,000

$348,334$1,052,750

$6,790,000$678,000

5 Yr. Total - $9,794,084

NAV, SHEL,COMM,AQUA, WILD,WARM,COLD, ESTBIOL, RARE,IND.

Mugu Lagooneast arm, MainLagoon,western armCallegas CreekTidal Prism

Agricultural runoff, nonpointsource runoff

In situ treatment of pollutedsediment

Dredging and removal of pollutedsediments

Approximately.: -$72,500,000

$1,000,000-$5,000,000

EST, WILD,MIGR

FINAL

34



San DiegoBay, SeventhSt. ChannelNaval Station

Industrial Activities, pesticidesfrom lawns, streets and buildings(urban runoff), and runoff frompest control operations, andatmospheric fallout.

Dredging & upland disposal.Dredging $ Contained AquaticDisposal.

$3,384,800-$7,405,200

$145,520-$275,880

MAR

San FranciscoBay, CastroCove

Refinery operations Site investigation & feasibilitystudy.Dredging & capping.RWQCB staff cost

$2,000,000 $1,000,000-20,000,000

$200,000

EST

San FranciscoBay, EntireBay

Mercury mining runoff and usein placer and hydraulic goldmining operations. Historicindustrial use of PCBs.

Complete cleanup New AlmadenMinePoint Potrero cleanupTMDLs adoption & MercurystrategyWatershed investigations toidentify sourcesRegional Monitoring Plan studiesPublic educationEducation on source control andproduct substitutionTotal

$10,000,000$800,000-3,000,000

$10-20,000,000

$4,000,000/5 Yrs$75,000/yr and

$150,000/2 yrs, then$50,000/yr

$50,000$25-$45,000,000

COMM, MAR,EST, REC 1,REC 2, WILD,SHEL.

San FranciscoBay, IslaisCreek

Storm water or urban runoffentering directly or throughcombined sewer overflowsoperated by the City and Countyof San Francisco. Sheet runoff

Site investigation & feasibilitystudyRemediation including dredgingwith follow-up monitoringChanging operation or increase

$1,000,000

$800,000-$5,200,000

$75,000,000

ESTREC 2

FINAL

35



or past discharge from autodismantlers and metal recyclingfacilities. Deposition of airemissions from I-280.

storage and treatment capacity ofthe current system

RWQCB Staff costs $100,000-$200,000

San FranciscoBay, MissionCreek

Historic sources or storm waterdirectly or entering by infrequentcombined sewer overflowsoperated by the City and Countyof San Francisco. Deposition ofair emissions from I-280.

Site investigation & feasibilitystudyRemediation includingdredging/capping or off sitedisposal & follow-up monitoringIncrease storage & structuralchanges

RWQCB Staff costs

$1,000,000

$800,000-$1,800,000

$75,000,000

$100,000-$200,000

EST,REC 1,REC 2

San FranciscoBay, PeytonSlough

Historical industrial activityassociated with the creation ofcinder/slag piles

Dredging, disposal and cappingFollow-up monitoringRWQCB Staff costs

$400,000 to $1,200,000$5,000-$10,000/yr$10,000 - $50,000

EST

San FranciscoBay, PointPotrero/RichmondHarbor

Historical ship building andscrapping operations and metalscrap recycling operations

Remedial Action PlanRecommendations.No actionSheetpile Bulkhead, capping andinstitutional controlsRock Dike Bulkhead capping andinstitutional controlsExcavation and off-site disposalExcavation reuse or disposal onsite

RWQCB costs

$0

$792,000

$1,344,000$3,010,000

$881,000

$30,000/3yrs

COMM, MAR,EST, WILD,REC 1, REC 2

FINAL

36



San FranciscoBay, StegeMarsh

Oxidation of pyrite cinders in thepresence of sulfides producedduring industrial process.Pollutants may have also enteredvia urban runoff or from uplandindustrial facilities.

Site investigation & feasibilitystudy and remediation option

RWQCB costs

$1,500,000 to$10,000,000

$100,000-$200,000

EST, WILD,RARE

San JoaquinRiver, City ofStockton

Low Dissolved Oxygen causedby Ammonia and BOD from theStockton Wastewater ControlFacility and surrounding pointand nonpoint discharges.

TMDL development studies toachieve full compliance with waterquality objectives as follows:1. Steering committee facilitation& coordination2. Summarize and compile data3. Source analysis4. Monitoring to evaluate loadreduction

$12,000

$50,000$610,000

$20,000/Yr

COMM, EST,REC 1, REC 2,WILD

Santa MonicaBay, PalosVerdes Shelf

Historical wastewater dischargesfrom manufacturing operationsand wastewater treatment plantdischarges

1. Capping 7.6 Sq. Km with 45 cmisolation cap2. Capping 7.6 Sq. Km with 15 cmisolation cap3. Capping most polluted area 4.9Sq. Km with 15 cm. isolation cap

$44-$67,000,000

$18-$30,000,000

$13-$19,000,000

MAR,COMM

FINAL

37

TABLE 4: MITIGATION MEASURES NECESSARY TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Type ofRemediationActivity

EnvironmentalFactor

Potentially SignificantImpact

Mitigation Measures

Dredging,Disposal,Capping,Confined AquaticDisposal

Air Quality Emissions fromdredging, excavation;transport, disposal, andcapping equipment

Use electric dredging equipment; purchase air credits; scheduleremediation for time of year that will cause least impacts to airquality; optimize the mode of transportation to reduce air emissions;evaluate and minimize the relative impacts of hauling dredgedmaterial by alternate means; favor sites closer to dredge sites;minimize number of trips necessary to transport dredged material todisposal site or rehandling facility; meet requirements of airmanagement plans.


Potential for increasedodors if dredgedmaterial is reused.

Design and locate reuse facility or other facility to remove impact.


Surface Water Short-term impact onaquatic resources fromhigh concentrations ofchemical concentrationsor turbidity

Require the use of dredging equipment or operations that minimizethe discharge of chemical pollutants during dredging/capping; reduceimpacts by accurate positioning of disposal equipment duringdredging; use silt curtains to reduce dispersal beyonddredge/excavation site; use coffer dams in small channels use largesettling tanks to reduce excessive turbidity; monitor dredging anddisposal activities to assess project is being implemented asauthorized and whether disposal of dredged/capping material is stayswithin disposal area or is transported out of the disposal area.

Dredging,Disposal

Runoff from excavationor disposal above sealevel

Comply with SWRCB/RWQCB storm water programs and WDRs.Construct storm water system that directs runoff away from sensitiveresources and implement BMPs for improve water quality.

Capping,Confined AquaticDisposal

Leaching of pollutantsfrom capped area intosurface sediments and

Require a monitoring program to ensure polluted sediments areplaced as intended, cap material is placed correctly and the cap iseffective in isolating polluted sediments.

FINAL

38


EnvironmentalFactor


Mitigation Measures

water.Capping,Confined AquaticDisposal

Changes in currents orcourse/direction ofwater movements

Removal and placement will attempt to retain regional bottom depthand contour, except where bathymetry is planned for environmentalimprovement.

Dredging,Disposal

Geology andgroundwater

Destabilizing channelslopes and underminingpilings

Use BMPs or standard building practices to reduce instability ofpilings and wharves.

Destabilizing sedimentsunder cap

Incorporate into design, the site depositional/erosionalcharacteristics, current velocities, bathymetry, depth and width tocontain spread of materials, etc.


Biologicalresources

Turbidity disruptingsensitive spawning ormigrating fish speciesor excessive turbiditycaused by dredgingoperation threateningburial or contaminationof sensitive habitats;noise, light, or trafficcausing seasonaldisruption to nestingbirds.

See surface water mitigation for turbidity. Avoiding dredgingoperations during periods when species are spawning or migratingthrough project area; change schedule to avoid bird nesting season;operate during daylight hours; use of silt curtains to reduce dispersalof turbidity plume beyond immediate area.


Sensitive species maybe displaced byremoving habitat orthreat or burial orcontamination ofsensitive habitats due to

See surface water mitigation for turbidity. Any displaced habitatsshould be replaced nearby with equal or greater area and density.Require restoration of the site or restoration of an offshore locationto mitigate for loss of intertidal habitat.

FINAL

39


EnvironmentalFactor


Mitigation Measures

excessive turbiditycaused by dredgingoperation.


Endangered species For “incidental take” - habitat protection, funding to protect and/ormanage habitat, training of construction/operation employees toavoid impacts, implementation of standardized avoidance measures.No project if it would result in jeopardizing continued existence ofan endangered species.


Transportation Access to berths byships or recreationalboating could bealtered.

Coordinate/schedule dredging disposal activities with terminalmanagers/harbor masters. Ensure adequate access channels areavailable for shipping and other harbor/bay use; operate when vesseltraffic minimal; use smaller dredges.


Noise Operation of dredgingoperations may causenoise impacts.

Comply with local noise ordinances. Reduce or eliminate noise byusing silencers or mufflers on dredging equipment. Consider use ofelectrical dredging equipment. Reduce noise during night hours.Use smaller dredges.


Hazards andPolluted wastes

Accidentalspills/releases fromdredging operations

Develop procedures and requirements for loading and unloadingpolluted sediments to eliminate potential for spillage. Establish incleanup plan, cleanup procedures if spillage/release occurs.

Disposal Leaching of pollutantsinto groundwater.

Dry sediments in areas where impermeable liner or membrane blocksleaching.

Disposal Disposal of pollutedsediments may exceedlandfill capacities oracceptance criteria.

The areal extent and volume of sediment should be characterized sorealistic estimates are available to plan disposal. Reevaluate ifimpact still exists. Once these estimates still exceed capacities, planfor alternate use of polluted sediments to remove impact. Consider,

FINAL

40


EnvironmentalFactor


Mitigation Measures

as appropriate, confined aquatic disposal, wetland restoration, leveereuse. Consider and mitigate site-specific impacts of otheralternatives

Dredging Dredging near formerexplosives disposal area- danger of injury topeople, equipment, andwildlife at dredge site;danger to public due atdisposal site.

Placing grate at dredge cutter head to reject large ordinance;disposal of dredge material where explosives could not cause harm;testing sediment for leakage of explosives; inspection at disposal site.


Trucking hazardous orexplosive wastes overbridges or throughneighborhoods -possibility of fire orexplosion, exclusion ofhazardous waste fromcertain neighborhoods,inability to get bridge-crossing permits intimely manner.

Selection of feasible alternative mitigation measure such as capping,or in-situ or ex-situ treatment near dredge site.

FINAL

41

Findings

Known toxic hot spotsTwenty-one two high priority known toxic hot spots havebeen identified in the enclosed bays, estuaries and oceanwaters of the State.

Planning for the remediation of these sites has beencompleted and incorporated into the Consolidated ToxicHot Spots Cleanup Plan.

Twenty-six moderate and low priority known toxic hotspots have been identified.

Scope of actions and costsThe RWQCBs has have identified a number of actions toaddress the problems identified at each high priority knowntoxic hot spot. Depending on the source and areal extent ofthe known toxic hot spot, the actions to remediate the sitesinclude:

• Institutional controls/education• Better characterization of the sites and problem• Dredging• Capping• A combination of dredging and capping• Source control• Watershed management• Implementation of a no-action alternative

Several of the actions only work to characterize the problemat a toxic hot spot. The costs identified in these study-oriented actions do not include all actions necessary to fullyremediate the toxic hot spot. Additional funds would berequired to remediate these toxic hot spots aftercharacterization studies are complete.

The estimated total cost to implement the ConsolidatedToxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plan ranges from $69 million to$512 million $87.6 72 million to $1.03 billion812 million.Much of this amount is recoverable from responsible

FINAL

42

dischargers. The unfunded portion of the cost to implementthe Consolidated Plan ranges from approximately $37 to$229 million $45.6 40 million to $ 555529 million.

Implementation/Funding ProgramsMuch of the Consolidated Toxic Hot Spots Cleanup Plancan be implemented through existing Water Codeauthorities. However, no funding is identified to implementthe Consolidated Plan for several high priority known toxichot spots.

A variety of potential funding sources exist that could beused to fund portions of the cleanup plan. These fundingsources include: nonpoint source grants, wetland grants,the State Revolving Fund, CALFED, Agricultural DrainageManagement Loan Program, and the Cleanup andAbatement Fund. The Consolidated Plan could also beimplemented by redirecting funding using SupplementalEnvironmental Projects or trading credits.

None of these funds or approaches, singly or incombination, can provide sufficient funding to implementthe remedial actions recommended for the high priorityknown toxic hot spots.

Need for a program to fund remediationThe SWRCB recommends that the California Legislatureconsider augmenting the SWRCB budget with funds tobegin implementation of the actions identified for highpriority known toxic hot spots. The Legislature need notestablish a new program to implement fund toxic hot spotcleanup.

Additional funding is needed to support prevention of toxichot spots caused by or contributed to by point and nonpointdischargers. The SWRCB and RWQCBs need additionalfunds to support the revision of WDRs, enforcement,compliance, storm water activities and the control nonpointpollution sources activities to adequately implementwatershed management.

CONSOLIDATED TOXIC HOT SPOTS CLEANUP … 29, 2 003 June 1999. Table of Contents ... Chap. 269) the...

Documents

Transcript of CONSOLIDATED TOXIC HOT SPOTS CLEANUP … 29, 2 003 June 1999. Table of Contents ... Chap. 269) the...