Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 42
3
Regulatory Framework and
Public Concerns
As public concerns over the condition of the nation's environment grew
during the 1970s and 1980s, statutes were enacted to address them. This
chapter discusses the major federal, California state, and international laws
that address water quality and related issues, and the agencies responsible
for implementing them. Many of the decisions made by these agencies in
the context of the statutory requirements are based, in part, on information
derived from the monitoring system in the Southern California Bight.
Public concern over water quality has not abated, and in many ways
has grown sharper in recent years. Hearings held in 1988 on the California
ocean plan provided a forum for restating these concerns as they relate to
monitoring and are therefore summarized in this chapter.
REGUIATORY SECTOR
State and federal agencies have regulatory authority over three types
of environmental issues in the Southern California Bight:
1. water quality control,
2. public health and safety, and
3. natural resources protection and management.
Marine Water Quality
The two major federal laws that regulate marine water quality are
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and 1987
42
OCR for page 43
43
(the Clean Water Act, as amended, or CWA), and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972. The CWA regulates all
discharges into navigable waters of the United States, from fresh waters
through the estuaries, the territorial sea (0 to 3 nautical miles hereafter
called the 3-ml limit), the contiguous zone (3 to 12 nautical miles), and
beyond (Figure 3-1~. It covers pipeline discharges to estuaries, the terri-
torial sea, and federal waters beyond the 3-ml limit. It also covers runoff
from land and dumping of wastes (primarily dredged material) from vessels
into estuaries. The MPRSA regulates the transportation and dumping of
wastes in marine waters from the mean low-water line of the open coast
to the outer limit of federal jurisdiction. Thus, the CWA covers pipeline
discharges from coastal sewage treatment plants, electric power plants, and
commercial and industrial operations to fresh and marine waters, as well as
discharges from oil platforms in state and federal waters. The MPRSA cov-
ers any dumping of materials from barges or ships into the ocean, including
incineration of hazardous wastes at sea.
An important difference between the mro laws is that the CWA is
a water pollution abatement law and as such is not required to consider
effects on the air and land of abatement actions for water. MPRSA on
the other hand requires evaluation and assessment of all potential water,
air, and land impacts before an action (e.g., dump site designation) can be
taken. Thus, pipeline discharge of sewage sludge is illegal under C WA.
The primary purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. water resources (Office
of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1987~. This was to be accomplished by a
federal grant and loan program to help municipalities to build or upgrade
sewage treatment plants and by pollution control programs with regulatory
requirements for industrial and municipal discharges.
The Environmental Protection Agengy (EPA) is the federal agency
that administers the CWN In the state of California, the pollution control
provisions of the CWA are administered by the California State Water
Resources Control Board and the regional water quality control boards
under authority of the Porter Cologne Act (Water Code Sections 13000 et
sequel.
Section 402 of the CWA authorizes the EPA to establish and adminis-
ter the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program. All municipal and industrial facilities discharging directly into
navigable waters are required to obtain a NPDES permit. Pollution con-
trol is implemented primarily by "end of the pipe" (effluent) limitations
on specific conventional chemicals that may be present in the discharge.
These limitations are based primarily on considerations of current available
technology (technology-based limits). Recently, there has been a growing
emphasis on basing permit limitations on consideration of the quality and
OCR for page 44
44
River (3
A'
i'
Sewage
'< `~:c treatment
.\
.,.,_
,
],Coastal Waters,
Baseline to 3
, nautical miles
(territorial sea)
mar
Platform
Discharges
_~
Estuary
'$)
:3!
Dredged material
disposal
. ~
~1
pipelines
Industrial
y:l
, ', . pipelines
, ~/~3\~
Runoff ~i
I ndustrial ,
plant .
At,
' (3
.~,,
,_ arc _~,.~-~:
' Dredged
| material
Open Ocean
3 to 12 nautical miles
(contiguous zone)
and beyond
''OF
Platform Discharges
At,
,53
__
Sewage sludge
9
~ 35~ -
Industrial waste
dumping
,:3
Ha: _
Dredged
material
FIGURE 3.1 Junsdictional boundaries of environmental laws affecting marine disposal.
SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1987.
uses of the receiving waters (water quality-based limits). Dischargers are
required to report periodically on compliance with technology-based limits.
In addition, if water qualib-based limits are included in the permit and the
discharge is to state waters, a monitoring program is required to ensure
that water quality standards and requirements are met.
EPA issues permits for discharges outside state waters (beyond the 3-
mi limit) and reviews NPDES permits issued by the regional water quality
control boards. EPA is also the primary permitting authority for special
permits identified by the CWA, such as section 301(h), which authorizes
waivers from secondary treatment of effluent discharged into marine waters
if water quality objectives to protect the marine environment can be met.
OCR for page 45
45
In the bight, the CWA is administered through the State Water Re-
sources Control Board by four regional boards: Central Coast (Region 3),
Los Angeles (Region 4), Santa Ana (Region 8), and San Diego (Region 9~.
The regional boards have primary responsibility for:
· developing and adopting waste discharge requirements (limits on
the discharge of wastes to state waters),
· administering monitoring programs (used to determine compliance
with permit requirements), and
developing and adopting water quality control plans (basin plans)
within their respective regions.
The state board determines state policy for water quality control and
reviews the basin plans developed by the regional boards to ensure that they
are consistent with state policy. The state board may also adopt statewide
water quality control plans or policies, which supersede the regional basin
plans if there is a conflict. Statewide plans and policies dealing with
estuarine, coastal, and marine waters of California are:
the California ocean plan (Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean
Waters of California iState Water Resources Control Board, 19834),
· the California thermal plan (Water Quality Control Plan for Control
of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays
and Estuaries of California [State Water Resources Control Board, 19753),
and
· the enclosed bays and estuaries policy (Water Quality Control Policy
for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California iState Water Resources
Control Board, 1974~.
Statewide and regional water quality control plans designate:
· beneficial uses to be protected,
· water quality objectives (limits or levels of water quality constituents
for beneficial use protection), and
· implementation of ~ program for achieving water quality objectives
(waste discharge requirements).
The designation of beneficial uses and water quality objectives consti-
tute water quality standards for California. Waste discharge requirements
are derived from the relevant basin or statewide plan.
The California ocean plan sets the scope for most of the discharge-
related marine monitoring programs in the bight. The plan has been
reviewed three times (1978, 1983, and 1987) and amended twice (1978
and 1983~. Additional amendments were proposed in 1988 (State Water
Resources Control Board, 1988~. These amendments, as well as those
to the CWA in 1977, 1981, and 1987 resulted in increased monitoring
requirements for dischargers.
OCR for page 46
46
The regulatory process and the public are linked by the regional boards,
which deal with regional and local regulatory issues. Board members are
local residents and the staff deals directly with local governments, agencies,
and dischargers. The boards hold hearings for discharge permits, and the
staff (and, when appropriate, EPA-e.g., NPDES permits for discharges into
federal waters) develop ocean monitoring programs, interpret monitoring
results with respect to permit compliance, and inform the public.
The MPRSA, which regulates transportation of materials to be dumped
in the ocean or incinerated at sea, authorizes EPA to designate and manage
ocean dumping and incineration sites. EPA also evaluates ocean dumping
criteria for all permits and issues permits for ocean disposal of materials
other than dredged material. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
under Title I, Section 103, administers the permit program for disposal of
dredged material at ocean sites designated by EPIC However, EPA does
have the authority to review applications for dredged material disposal
permits. Both agencies must determine that the proposed dumping will
not unreasonably endanger human health or the marine environment ac-
cording to the ocean dumping criteria, and that ocean disposal is the best
environmental option.
Section 404 of the CWA regulates discharge of dredged or fill material
within the 3-ml limit and in estuaries and wetlands (Figure 3-1~. The COE
regulates such discharges, using guidelines they developed jointly with EPA
(Office of Technology Assessment, 1987~. Under Section 401 of the CWA,
such discharges must be certified by the affected state as complying with
applicable water quality criteria. In the event of a conflict between the
state and COE, or outside of COE jurisdiction, the regional boards have
independent authority under the California Water Code to regulate such
discharges.
Under Title I, Section 107, of the MPRSA, the U.S. Coast Guard is
responsible for surveillance and enforcement to prevent unlawful dumping
of prohibited material, dumping outside designated ocean dump sites, and
illegal transportation of material for dumping. Title I expressly prohibits
the disposal of high-level radioactive wastes and chemical and biological
warfare agents. Certain other materials are allowed only under certain
circumstances.
Title II requires EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to conduct research and monitoring to assess the
environmental impacts of waste disposal.
Title III of MPRSA gives NOAA the authority to establish marine
sanctuaries. Inland waters and marine areas as far offshore as the edge
of the continental shelf can be designated as marine sanctuaries if such
designation is determined necessary to preserve or restore the area for
conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic purposes. The Channel
OCR for page 47
47
Islands National Marine Sanctuary, located in the bight, is an example.
Leo international conventions address ocean dumping. The first is the
London Dumping Convention (LDC), which was negotiated in 1972 and
became effective in 1975. It requires that all signatory nations adopt marine
disposal criteria that, at a minimum, are equivalent to and contain the basic
constraints of those in the LDC. The United States, Mexico, and 59 other
countries have ratified the LDC. In 1974, the MPRSA was amended so
that all U.S. marine disposal criteria would be consistent with and contain
all the basic constraints set forth in the LDC.
The second agreement, the International Convention for the Pre-
vention of Pollution from Ships (1973 and protocols of 1978, known as
MARPOL 73n8) regulates discharges from ships. Annex 1 (covering dis-
charges of oil) and Annex 2 (covering discharges of bulk chemicals) have
been ratified by the required number of nations and are in effect. Annex
3 (covering sewage discharges), Annex 4 (covering hazardous substances
in packaged form), and Annex 5 (covering garbage) await approval. The
U.S. Senate recently enacted the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and
Control Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-200, Title II, Sections 2001 to 2305), which
includes provisions of Annex 5 of MARPOL 73~78 and prohibits ships from
dumping plastics anywhere in the ocean and from discharging garbage to
the ocean within 12 mi of shore, including the bight. Ports will be required
to provide garbage disposal facilities for ships, and ship captains will be
required to keep a waste management log, which must be available to port
officials.
Public Health and Safety
State and federal agencies with primary responsibility for public health
and safety within the bight's waters and along its shores are the California
State Department of Health Services (DHS), the county and municipal
public health agencies, and the federal Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). The California Health and Safety Code and the California Admin-
istrative Code authorize the DHS to supervise sanitation, healthfulness,
and safeW of public beaches and public water-contact sports areas. The
main focus of DHS monitoring activities is marine recreational areas from
the beach out to a depth of 30 ft or 1,000 ft from shore, whichever is
farther (the surf zone), and coastal kelp beds. DHS has been relying on
bacteriological standards developed in 1942 (total and fecal coliforms) to
judge the safety of water bodies (California Department of Public Health,
1943~. When standards are exceeded, DHS or local health officials may
post warning signs or declare beach closures. Permanent warning signs
have been posted in the vicinity of major storm drain outlets into Santa
Monica Bay and near the U.S-Mexican border. Upper Newport Bay has
OCR for page 48
48
been closed to water-contact sports since 1974 (Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board, 1985~.
Under present laws and regulations, DHS can close fishing and shell-
fishing areas because of bacterial contamination and the presence of par-
alytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) organisms in marine animals. Since 1978,
upper Newport Bay has been closed to shellfish gathering for human con-
sumption because of bacterial contamination from the bay drainage area
(Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1985~. A commercial
shellfish growing operation in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in San Diego County
is required by its state permit to cease harvesting for seven days after rain in
excess of 0.25 inches due to bacterial contamination from the lagoon wate~-
shed (California Department of Health Services, April 7, 1988~. The DHS
has maintained that elevated fecal conform levels in coastal waters and in
shellfish meats at a mariculture operation in the Santa Barbara Channel
have resulted from the intermittent impact of undisinfected sewage effluent
from both the Goleta and Santa Barbara wastewater treatment plants. In
1987, the Goleta plant initiated disinfection of its effluent prior to discharge
(California Department of Health Services, 1988b, letter to Pacific Seafood
Industries).
There is no specific authorization under current law to close fishing
and shellfishing areas due to chemical contamination. Until recently, there
was no systematic sampling of edible tissues of fisheries products from the
bight to evaluate potential effects on human health from chemical con-
tamination. However, the DHS recently issued a health advisory warning
against consumption of white croaker from the Santa Monica Bay, Palos
Verdes Peninsula, and Los Angeles Harbor areas because of heavy DDT
and PCB contamination.
The DHS is also overseeing a year-long assessment of chemical con-
tamination of recreational and commercial fish sampled from 25 areas in
the bight. More recently, experimental quantitative risk assessment meth-
ods have been used to evaluate suspected or potential human carcinogens
in fishery products. Such methods may lead to estimates of health risks
from levels of contamination well below current FDA action limits.
Monitoring for conform or other enteric bacteria is also a part of all
monitoring programs administered by the regional water quality control
boards and EPA around municipal wastewater outfalls. This bacterial
monitoring is intended to track the wastewater plume and evaluate possible
hazards to the water contact recreation shorelines.
Natural Resource Protection and Management
Several state and federal resource agencies are involved in protecting
and managing the natural resources of the Southern California Bight. The
OCR for page 49
49
California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) of NOAA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of
the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) are all involved in protecting
and managing living marine resources. Their activities include fish stock
assessments and habitat protection. The State Lands Commission is re-
sponsible for leasing tidal and submerged lands out to the 3-ml limit for
energy and mineral development, subject to the Public bust Doctrine. The
California Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Health
Services issue permits for commercial shellfish growing, subject to review
by the State Islands Commission. The DOI's Minerals Management Service
(MMS) is responsible under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953
(OCSLA) for leasing energy and mineral rights in federal waters extending
from the 3-ml limit to the outer limit (200 mi) of the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ).
Resource exploitation, management, and protection activities must
comply with several federal regulations in addition to those dealing with
water quality. The National Environmental Polipy Act of 1970 (NEPA)
requires that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for all
proposed legislation and all major federal actions that could significantly
affect the quality of the environment. Thus, the MMS prepares an EIS
before leasing offshore tracts for oil and gas exploration. Although EPA
is not required to prepare an EIS for ocean disposal site designations, its
policy is to do so voluntarily for dump site and incineration site designations.
EPA also prepared an EIS in 1977 when it nronosed revisions to the ocean
dumping regulations and criteria.
- r--r
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires all federal and state
agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will
not jeopardize the existence of an endangered or threatened species or
result in damage or destruction of critical habitat for such species. The act
authorizes the NMFS and FWS to render a biological opinion about the
potential effect of a proposed activity on endangered species. As part of
the EIS process, one of these agencies, usually upon consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game, must attest that the proposed
action is compatible with the Endangered Species Act.
The NMFS and FWS are empowered by the Marine Mammal Protec-
tion Act of 1972 to enforce a moratorium on the taking or importation of
marine mammals and marine mammal products except by special permit
from the Secretary of Commerce. The National Historic Preservation Act
protects historic and prehistoric archaeological resources.
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (COMA) administered
by NOAA provides grants to coastal states to develop coastal management
plans. It also provides for state review of federal actions, including leasing
of tracts for oil development and designation of ocean dump sites in federal
OCR for page 50
50
waters that might directly affect the coastal zone. Although the State Water
Resources Control Board has primary authority to regulate water quality,
the California Coastal Commission is responsible for reviewing federal
actions for consistency with the state's coastal management plan. In this
role, the commission has had a major influence on proposed oil and gas
development activities on California's outer continental shelf.
Under the CZ}LA National Estuarine Reserve Research Program, the
Secretary of Commerce may designate a state or estuary as a national
reserve upon nomination for such designation by the state's governor. The
Tijuana Estuary is the first estuary in the Southern California Bight to
receive such status.
The California Coastal Commission controls development within the
coastal zone by issuing permits and approving local development plans in
accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The California Coastal
Conservancy is authorized to make grants to local governments to acquire
and restore critical habitats, including coastal wetlands.
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION
Complex environmental problems may not fall neatly within the areas
of responsibility of individual agencies. They may involve the responsibili-
ties of several agencies, or none, and may cross jurisdictional boundaries.
In delegating responsibility for regulatory activities in the bight to different
state and federal agencies, the U.S. Congress and the state legislature have
not always been able to anticipate such problems. As a result, agencies
must deal with policy conflicts, gaps, and overlaps. In addition, monitoring
and research results generated by one agency can relate to the statutory
responsibility of another. There are several examples in the bight of inter-
agency cooperation that has successfully resolved such conflicts, and a few
are mentioned below.
The previous chapter described how the San Diego County Depart-
ment of Public Health, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and the U.S. State Department's International Boundary Commis-
sion cooperated on the design of a monitoring program to assess sewage
contamination from Tijuana. In addition, the EPAs Region IX office co-
operates with the U.S. Army COE and with the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards in establishing discharge and disposal limitations and mon-
tonng programs.
The California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation (CalCOFI)
program is a long-standing example of a joint monitoring and research
program involving federal and state resource agencies and an academic
institution. The State Water Resources Control Board and the California
Department of Fish and Game have combined resources to establish a
OCR for page 51
51
statewide Mussel Watch Program to monitor toxic contamination. This
program complements NOAA's National Status and [lends Program. The
NOAA Sea Grant programs (which receive matching funds from the state
of California), the U.S. FWS, the Coastal Conservancy, and the Califor-
nia Department o f Fish and Game have cooperated in coastal wetland
restoration projects.
Responding to mounting public concern over the condition of Santa
Monica Bay, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
funded the Santa Monica Bay Study. The study's goal was to compile all
data relevant to the bay, perform an overall assessment of the state of
its marine environment, and develop an implementation plan for specific
actions to improve it. The study's steering committee is a consortium
of representatives from local and state governments, environmental and
academic groups, federal agencies, and local dischargers. Ten local entities
and the SWRCB (using Clean Water Act monies) are funding the study.
The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has initiated a
similar program to address environmental problems in San Diego Bay.
PUBLIC CONCERNS FOR THE BIGHT
There is intense public interest and awareness about environmental
quality in Southern California. As a result, the public has been very vocal
in advocating strong and effective environmental protection policies for the
Southern California Bight. A sampling of public concerns and perceived
policy needs for the bight ecosystem can be gained from the October
1986 triennnial review of the California ocean plan (State Water Resources
Control Board, 1987) and from the presentations of interested parties to
the case study panel. The following points were made by representatives
of citizen organizations:
.
The California ocean plan (State Water Resources Control Board,
1987) needs clearer definitions of narrative terms such as "degrade." It is
difficult to assess the information provided by monitoring in the context of
such vague objectives.
· Not enough attention is being paid to nonpoint sources of contam-
inants entering the bight, such as stormwater drains and aerial fallout. The
plan should consider placing monitoring requirements on these sources.
.
There should be a shift from discharge standards and effluent lim-
itations based on allowable concentrations of contaminants in receiving
waters to standards and limitations based on mass emissions of contami-
nants. This would better reflect the loading of the marine environment.
· A more complete assessment of the cumulative effects of marine
contamination is necessary.
OCR for page 52
52
· The plan should require monitoring of sediments and biota to
better assess cumulative levels of contaminants and their associated effects.
· There should be more independent review and oversight of the
monitoring programs performed by dischargers.
· Self monitoring should be eliminated and monitoring put in the
hands of state agencies.
· There should be better analysis of monitoring data submitted to
public agencies and better communication of that information to the public.
· An oceanic institute associated with local universities should be
established to conduct regular monitoring currently performed by discharg-
ers, to coordinate monitoring by other agencies, and to perform related
research.
· Standardized bioassay protocols and bioaccumulation tests should
be required to better assess the toxicity of effluents to marine life and the
hazards of eating fishery products from coastal areas.
The public appears to expect monitoring activities to provide informa-
tion that answers four basic questions:
1. Is it safe to swim in the ocean?
2. Is it safe to eat the local seafood?
3. Are fisheries and other living resources being adequately protected?
4. Is the health of the ecosystem being safeguarded?
These are the public expectations that the panel perceives drive the
actual monitoring programs. However, monitoring is carried out within
a broader societal context, which includes such issues as cost, the effects
of competing uses on land, water, and air quality, and tradeoffs between
short and long-term costs and benefits. The challenge is valid and useful
to management decision making in that it provides information addressing
public concerns.
SUMMARY
The regulatory framework in the Southern California Bight is indeed
complex and far reaching. Successful implementation of monitoring pro-
grams often requires a high degree of cooperation among state and federal
officials. The efficient design of a monitoring system that can meet the vari-
ous objectives of regulatory interests and not impose unreasonable burdens
on the regulated community is a formidable task. In succeeding chapters,
the details of this system are discussed and its success at meeting these
criteria assessed.
In part, the success of the regulatory program and the role that
monitoring plays depend on public confidence. The public continues to
OCR for page 53
53
question the efficacy of monitoring and the status of the marine environ-
ment. Subsequent chapters will offer suggestions about the technical design
of monitoring programs that may address those questions.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
control board
