WPCG 2HBEX@Z#|  (TT) S-#XxPʖQy7XP#"5@^*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTxTxxTxTxTxTBT7T777TAxTf/fExTxTxTxo7oE\A\AN:*KT7JTTTTT.3}}T2T}277JJT77TT7J72t7[[[[^ee*B`^-wSTTn[Cfx`xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwhe*7DTT77T^*7*/TTTTTTTTTT//^^^Jxooxf\xx7Axfxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ7TJTT7\777JJ:T7A7xx*7TTTT!T7.T^7TB[227`K*723T}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx\TJJJJJJoJJJJJ////TTTTTTT[TTTTTTTHP LaserJet IIIHPLASIII.WRSd\  P\,,,4uaP2z Ez#@X" S-#XxPʖQy7XP#Times New Roman (TT)Univers (WN)"5@^CCc}}ǗCCC}CCCC}}}}}}}}}}CCgǓ}ro7okv}ǐzCCC}c}krkrkJrr00k0rrrrFcJrooo`YcY}CC!}}}R}}zkkkkkékrkrkrkrk70707070rrrrrrrrrCokrrrorvr}}}kk}}}}}}}r}r}rr}}}}}}7zokk0kRrr}CCFRcCCNC}}Cgoo}}CQQ}Mcc}MCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCMtCnnyy2}o6coonCzohbnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxCCc}}ǗCCC}CCCC}}}}}}}}}}CCgǓ}ro7okv}ǐzCCC}c}krkrkJrr00k0rrrrFcJrooo`YcY}CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC}}}}c}}cQoCc}}MM}o}}MQogÌrrrr7777Ǘvzkkkkkkkkkkk0000rrrrrrrrrrrrory.C8*,/C\  P6QP2CC,y7XxPʖQXPxx\xo\fxxxxf7/7NT7JTJTJ7TT//T/TTTT7A/TTxTTJP!PZ*7777BE7TTxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7/7/7/7/xTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxTxJxTxTxTxTxT\TxTxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxTx2F @  @ #| "5@^!!+CCkP((/F!(!!CCCCCCCCCC!!FFFCzPPWWPI]W!*@+Aindex 2index 2(` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading)` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption*;1#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#_Equation Caption_Equation Caption+11#XP\  P6QXP##C\  P6QP#2VT,OB-b C.2O/Qfooter۔D,;4 <DL!!#d\  PCP#MACNormalp-Y     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     :}D4P T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T0*ÍÍ*Í ., US $}6 @      X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     :}D4P 0*ÍÍ*Í ., US $}6 @ Word222NullWord222Null.#/x PX##/x PX#NormalNormal/X` hp#/x PX##/x PX#2\0T1W2Y3D\Page NumberPage Number0X` hp#/x PX##/x PX#Footnote referFootnote reference1  X` hp#/Z P##/x PX#Footnote textFootnote text2 X` hp#/d P##/x PX#HeadingChapter Heading3J d  ) I. ׃  2^4*]5{][K^bK^SubheadingSubheading4@6  ?  A. blockquote5ӓ XArial (TT)CG Times (WN)CG Times (WN) (Italic)CG Times (WN) (Bold)CG Times (WN) (Bold Italic)2k@^@b@_e@h"5@^18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxhr{hbx{8@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl888SSSJSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>@.SSxSSJJSJS11SSSESSSxJxJxJxJxJorJhJhJhJhJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{S1SxJ{SxSxSxS{S_SxSxSxSrJrJrShShShSxSxSxxSxS{S{SSSSSSS@uSh.hE{S{SxS11o>oEY@11N1LSS8JDDSS1SSS:SSS:8811111111111118:t8[[ee*S\-wSDDn[Cfx\xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwheddddddddddddddddddd18MSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Jxhr{hbx{8@uh{x_xoYh{xxxl888SSSJSJSJ8SS..S.SSSS>@.SSxSSJJSJS1111111111111111188111111111111118SSSSSSSSSD8SSS::S\SLS:SDJxxxxxxrhhhh8888{{xxxxxx{{{{x_SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSSS"5@^18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sffoxf_xx8Jo\oxfxfS\xff\\888SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS@@.SJoJJ@JSJS11SSSESSSfSfSfSfSfSooJfJfJfJfJ8.8.8.8.oSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS1JfSxSxSxS\JxSfSfSfSfSoJoJoSfSfSfSxSxSxxSxSxSxSSSSSSSJoJ\.\EoSoSxS11f@fES@11N1LSS8SMMSS1SSS:SSS:8811111111111118:t8[[ee*S\-wSMMn[Cfx\xWkRx[\[ceIfIs`Wx[rriwheddddddddddddddddddd18PSS888S8888SSSSSSSSSS88Sffoxf_xx8Jo\oxfxfS\xff\\888SSSSSJSJ.SS..J.xSSSS@@.SJoJJ@JSJS1111111111111111188111111111111118SSSSSSSSSM8SSS::S\SLS:SMSffffffoffff8888xoxxxxxxxxxx\fSSSSSSSoJJJJJ....SSSSSSSSSSSSJS"5@^;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZY}}vCM}rk}CCCcccYcYcYCcc77c7ccccJM7ccccYYcYc;;!cccRcccYYYYYY}Y}Y}Y}YC7C7C7C7ccccccccc;cYcccccrccccYYc}c}c}cccccccccccccMc}7}Rccc;;JRkM;;N;\ccCYQQcc;cccFcccFCC;;;;;;;;;;;;;CFtCnnyy2co6cQQnCzohbnonvyXzXshn~|yxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;C\ccCCCcCCCCccccccccccCCDZY}}vCM}rk}CCCcccYcYcYCcc77c7ccccJM7ccccYYcYc;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CC;;;;;;;;;;;;;;CcccccccccQCcccFFcoc\cFcQY}}}}CCCCrcYYYYYYYYYYY7777cccccccccccccc"5@^#(7<pdvs[sjUdvsssg555OOOGOGOG5OO,,O,|OOOO;>,OOsOOGGOGO//OOOBOOOsGsGsGsGsGjmGdGdGdGdG5,5,5,5,vOsOsOsOsOvOvOvOvO/OsGvOsOsOsOvO[OsOsOsOmGmGmOdOdOdOsOsOssOsOvOvOOOOOOO>pOd,dBvOvOsO//j;jBU>//N/IOO5GAAOO/OOO8OOO855/////////////58t5XXaa(OY,rOAA{{{iXCbsYsSgOsXYX_aFbFo\zSsXn{nerca```````````````````/5JOO|555O5555OOOOOOOOOO55Gsdmvd^sv5>pdvs[sjUdvsssg555OOOGOGOG5OO,,O,|OOOO;>,OOsOOGGOGO/////////////////55//////////////5OOOOOOOOOA5OOO88OYOIO8OAGssssssmdddd5555vvssssssvvvvs[OGGGGGGjGGGGG,,,,OOOOOOOOOOOOOO2bRER1XC8,jXX2PQXPdSx/x81, x PjQPTz-f81,f&_ x/2QXdU8C;, ;X PjQXP dVV"V(#, ΘhV PjQhPW7C;,1VXX_ p QXdYUdX, ~o PjQPXSdX,1& _ p Qd\BND,  PjQP ]@ND,1~_ p Q_?ND,&_ x/2QX ^<ND,F%*0 x}BQ`6zC;,t@#d P7P#  zN-y ddd yCalifornia's Ocean Resources: An Agenda for the FutureTJlT$5B: Water Quality  zP-The Resources Agency of CaliforniaE5B؃JT$July 1995 (Draft)ă  X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:t@# P7P#  a<y ddd y5B: WATER QUALITY #Xx P7;XP#  U< The State of California has established ocean and coastal water quality standards pursuant to State law and responsibilities delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Several new efforts are underway to provide further protection of ocean and coastal water quality as a result of recently enacted legislation and developing partnership approaches. This chapter examines how  U<California's water quality standards are established, administered, and enforced.  Y} -  Xf -  aO <# PE37P#BACKGROUND  YY -#Xx PE37;XP# Longterm maintenance and enhancement of the State's ocean and coastal waters can only be achieved with coordinated efforts to manage California's entire ocean ecosystem. Chapter 4 describes the geographic zones that make up this ecosystem: the inland watershed zone, the enclosed waters zone, the nearshore ocean zone, and the offshore ocean zone (see Figure 41). There is growing recognition that the majority of impacts to California's enclosed waters and nearshore ocean zones derive from pollution transported through inland waterways leading to the ocean. However, ocean water quality can be affected by activities within any of the zones. For instance, unfortunate accidents such as oil spills or untreated sewage releases in the open ocean can impact enclosed waters, such as bays, estuaries, and wetlands, and possibly inland waterways used by anadromous fish species. Water quality in California has been enhanced by State and federal water quality protection programs which require coordinated approaches to water quality management. Water quality is affected by two types of pollution, the difference between the two being determined by the source of input into  Y-the marine environment. Point source pollution is characterized by its entry to the aquatic environment from a specific structural facility, such as a pipeline outfall system, and can be generated from a variety of industrial and municipal facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, oil  Y-refineries, or power plants. Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, is any source that is not a point source and includes runoff from a variety of land uses such as agricultural, urban, forestry, and mineral extraction. Ocean dredge disposal, beach contamination, and garbage disposal are discussed  Yz-separately in the following analysis.# PE37P#  am!<ISSUE ANALYSIS  X#- #X PjU;XP# Point Source Pollution Treatment facilities for point source pollution are categorized as primary (physical treatment), advanced primary (physical and some chemical treatment), secondary (physical and biological treatment), and tertiary (additional control measures beyond secondary treatment to remedy specific pollution problems). Over the past 20 years, emphasis on point source pollution control has produced significant improvements in water quality. Dischargers are required to obtain permitsX(-**(3S$X  Y-specifying requirements to be met, including conditions for discharge, effluent standards, discharge improvement schedules, and selfmonitoring activities.  Y< Federal Requirements. In 1972, the Congress enacted the federal Water Pollution Control Act (now  Y-known as the Clean Water Act) which established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting process to regulate point source discharges of pollutants to navigable waters of the United States. Any NPDES permit or waiver issued under this process must be renewed every five years. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers this program under the guidance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This act also established a multibillion dollar Clean Water Grant Program for communities to build municipal wastewater treatment facilities, as well as to address other point source discharges. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), municipalities are required to provide secondary treatment of discharges. However, Section 301(h) provides for a waiver of the full secondary sewage treatment requirement if certain conditions are met demonstrating equivalent treatment. To receive a Section 301(h) waiver, the USEPA requires a permittee to demonstrate, through stringent monitoring and toxic source control, that no harm results to indigenous organisms near the effluent plume due to the discharge. Four such waivers have been issued by the USEPA to sanitation districts in California: Orange County, Goleta, Morro Bay, and Watsonville. Although the Watsonville sanitation district currently has a waiver, it is in the process of converting to secondary treatment. The City of San Diego currently does not have a waiver and is in litigation with the USEPA over the  Y!-approach to water quality management for its facilities.   However, the City is applying for a waiver, which could eliminate the need for the pending litigation if approved.  Y< State Requirements. The SWRCB has the primary responsibility to protect California's coastal and ocean water quality pursuant to the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act. This act is one of the nation's strongest antipollution laws and has provisions for enforcing water quality standards through issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements. As stated previously, the SWRCB has been delegated authority by the USEPA to administer the NPDES program for California. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards, in coordination with the SWRCB, issue both State waste discharge requirements and NPDES permits to individual dischargers. Dischargers are required to establish selfmonitoring programs for their discharges and submit compliance reports to Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Most NPDES permits and waste discharge requirements are combined into one permit. The SWRCB has established regulations to implement these measures through water quality control  Y -plans which include the California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan), Regional Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans), and the Thermal Water Quality Control Plan. Both Ocean and Basin plans identify beneficial uses within the area being addressed and lay out numerical and narrative objectives for waste discharges, as well as implementation procedures, for achieving these objectives.  YY%< Urban Storm Water Permitting Program. During passage of the 1987 amendments to the CWA, the Congress expressed particular concern about the impacts of urban storm water runoff from industrial and municipal sources. Section 402(p) of the act now requires urban storm water outfall systems to be considered point sources and includes a permit system that became effective in October 1992. Urban storm water consists of runoff from such sources as gas stations, parking lots, highways, golf")-**'" courses, industrial operations, and residential lawns which enter storm drains and ultimately coastal waters. The classification of urban stormwater as a point source is somewhat confusing because the inputs to the storm water outfalls are nonpoint sources. The 1987 CWA amendments require cities of 100,000 or greater, municipalities, and industries to apply for an NPDES permit to discharge storm water into storm drains. The SWRCB has adopted two general NPDES permits addressing industrial and construction activities. Both the SWRCB and Regional Water Quality Control Board staffs have determined that stormwater runoff is a major problem in large urban centers, like the Santa Monica and San Francisco Bay Areas, yet establishing standards and means of enforcement for this pollution source present significant challenges. Efforts to address these impacts include the San Francisco Bay and Santa Monica Bay Estuary Plans and ongoing efforts by State agencies such as the SWRCB and California Coastal Commission.  X - Nonpoint Source Pollution Although nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, has historically received less emphasis than point source pollution, government programs are gaining momentum to address this substantial source of water pollution. Staff at the SWRCB indicate that nonpoint source pollution is the major remaining cause of impairment to the State's waters. The SWRCB's 1988 Water Quality Assessment Report states, "nonpoint [pollution] sources are the major contributor of pollution to impacted streams,...marine waters,...wetlands and estuaries, and are an important contributor of pollution to harbors and bays." In the past few years, public awareness and government management efforts have turned to several complex and pressing issues regarding polluted runoff, including the impacts of petrochemical and metals runoff from urban areas, nutrients, pesticides, and sediment runoff from agricultural and forestry operations, and heavy metals leaching from inactive mines. The relative importance of these pollution sources differs for each watershed of the State, reflecting the dominant land uses in each.  Y|<#Xx PE37;XP# Federal Requirements. There have been three major developments in nonpoint source pollution response at the federal level:  Y;-,P1.,dWater Pollution Control Act of 1971 (now called the Clean Water Act). Section 208 of the CWA focused on issue identification, initial planning measures, and voluntary programs that should be considered with regard to nonpoint pollution. T$  Y-,P2.,dClean Water Act amendments of 1987. Section 319 was added to the CWA, providing a more aggressive approach to controlling or minimizing nonpoint source pollution by committing federal funds for state management plans, demonstration projects, and implementation plans.T$  Yp$-,P3.,dCoastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization of 1990. Section 6217 was added to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), requiring states with approved coastal management programs to develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. The USEPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) jointly administer this program at the federal level, while the Coastal Commission, SWRCB and six Regional Water Quality Control Boards administer it at the State level.T$"(-**'"Ԍ Y<ԙ State Requirements. The programs and policies of the SWRCB for preventing polluted runoff are included in its Nonpoint Source Management Plan (NSMP) prepared pursuant to Section 319 of the CWA. The SWRCB and Coastal Commission are reviewing the NSMP to determine whether the existing programs of the SWRCB and other State and federal agencies are adequate to comply with the new requirements of Section 6217 of the CZMA. Section 6217 identifies 56 management measures for protecting coastal waters that states are required to implement through a coastal nonpoint source pollution control program. The NSMP review process relies on the advice of technical advisory committees comprised of individuals familiar with methods for preventing pollution runoff from agriculture, mining, urban development, forestry, hydromodification, and recreational boating and marinas. A primary objective of the review is improving coordination among State and local resource management agencies, and other experts, to achieve more efficient transfer of technical and financial assistance for reducing nonpoint source pollution impacts. The technical advisory committees also evaluate proposed pollution control measures and offer alternatives, when appropriate. The results of this effort are required to be submitted to the USEPA and NOAA. It will be important for the review process results to be incorporated, where applicable, into the SWRCB regulations located within the Ocean and Basin plans. For instance, although the Ocean Plan is applicable to both point and nonpoint source pollution, there is little in the plan describing application of water quality standards to nonpoint source dischargers. Various federal, State, and local agencies, private nonprofit groups, and land owners are also involved in other efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution. For instance, projects are being undertaken along the north coast to reduce the impacts of forestry operations. Projects are also being undertaken in San Francisco and Santa Monica Bays through efforts coordinated by the respective Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the National Estuary Program, in the watersheds draining into the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary through efforts coordinated by the NOAA, and in many other areas coordinated through local organizations, such as resource conservation districts. These efforts range from curbmarking programs which inform the public that storm drains lead to the sea and stream restoration, to education and outreach efforts such as the Coastal Commission's Coastal Clean Day and AdoptABeach program. The challenge for the State  Y$-is to coordinate these many efforts being undertaken.  X- Disposal of Dredge Materials  Y- Authorization to dispose of dredged materials in the ocean, within enclosed coastal waters, or on land is provided through a variety of federal and State permit processes. Under authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 404 of the Clean Waters Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA or Ocean Dumping Act), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) develops, controls, maintains, and conserves the nation's navigable waters and wetlands. The Corps regulates development of any project involving fill, construction, or modification of waters of the United States. For example, pursuant to Section 103 of the MPRSA the Corps is authorized to permit disposal of dredged material into the ocean, if the Corps determines that "the dumping will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environments, ecological systems, or economic potentialities." However, the Corps is prohibited"(-**'" from issuing such a permit if the USEPA finds that the proposal cannot meet its criteria established for disposal site selection pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. Federal permits for dredge  Y-disposal cannot be issued, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, unless the SWRCB issues a certification that the proposed activity will not violate State water quality standards. Finally, the Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission have authority over disposal of dredge materials pursuant to the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA. The majority of dredging and filling operations along the coast occur within California's port facilities. One of the more innovative approaches to disposal of dredge materials has been the implementation of the Long Term Management Strategy for San Francisco Bay. This process brings together the interested parties to design longterm solutions to these difficult questions. Increasingly, small ports along the coast have had to deal with difficult dredging issues such as the accumulation of toxic sediments that need to be safely dredged to maintain harbor entrances. A more thorough discussion of dredge and fill operations is included in the chapters titled "Ocean Jurisdiction and Management" and "Ports and Harbors."  Xy- Beach Contamination The Natural Resources Defense Council published a report in August 1994 titled "Testing the Waters IV: The Unsolved Problem of U.S. Beach Pollution." Of 31 states and territories surveyed during 1993, California had the highest number of beach closings due to poor water quality (1,401 closings out of a total 2,452 closings). Of these closings, over 60% were located between San Diego and Los Angeles and almost 30% were in the San Francisco Bay Area. The most frequent sources of beach contamination in nearshore waters statewide are bacteria or viruses from a variety of sources, including urban runoff, municipal sewer discharges, and agricultural runoff. Beach contamination has also been associated with industrial waste discharges of toxic substances. California's counties and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) conduct water quality testing and monitoring, with beach closures based on noncompliance with DHS regulations. County health departments are required to report beach closures to the SWRCB where the data is entered into a centralized data collection system, and an annual beach closure report is prepared for the Legislature. Unfortunately, the State does not have a water quality monitoring program which covers all tributaries, small bays and estuaries, or the entire nearshore waters along the California coast. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehensively determine the health of these water bodies. As a principal beneficiary of clean marine waters, the aquaculture industry has been active in pursuing legislation to better address coastal point and nonpoint source pollution. Because California's oyster growers must meet stringent health standards, this industry supported the passage of the Shellfish Protection Act of 1993 (Chap 1081, Stats.1993), requiring the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to investigate the causes of pollution that have adversely affected shellfish growing areas. The SWRCB is conducting a study with UC Berkeley to help determine the best bacterial indicators from wastewater monitoring samples to use in evaluating the potential for disease causing organisms. This study, to be completed by July 1996, will examine discharge monitoring data from two large"(-**'" wastewater treatment plants to evaluate the relative effectiveness of using total coliform, fecal coliform, or enterococcus to determine the presence of disease in the water samples. The SWRCB will use this information to determine whether the bacterial monitoring requirements contained within the SWRCB's Ocean Plan should be amended.  X- Garbage Disposal Ocean disposal of garbage and other marine debris is distinguished from the discharge of wastes from a pipe or shore. Ocean disposal is defined by the London Dumping Convention (1975) as the "deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms, or manmade structures." According to the Marine Board of the National Research Council, the amount and precise characteristics of garbage thrown overboard from vessels is unknown. Vessel discards into the marine environment are difficult to identify due to domestic and industrial sewer discharges, and the littering of coastal waters by landgenerated wastes left on beaches or transported to the ocean via offshore winds, rivers, and coastal runoff. In evaluating this problem, the Marine Board made four findings:   "First, considerable amounts of garbage are generated by seafarers in most if not all maritime communities. Second, garbage discarded into the sea can be transported far from the point of discharge. Third, the disposal of plastics in the marine environment is causing considerable harm, including mortality among marine mammals, turtles, birds, and fish, either through entanglement or ingestion. The fourth finding, which is multifaceted, is that available data on the sources, fates, and effects of marine debris particularly vesselgenerated debris are often of poor quality, incomplete, and out of date." (National Research Council, 1995)    Reducing marine debris resulting from garbage disposal is one of the objectives of the 1978 International Marine Pollution Convention (MARPOL Treaty) and the federal Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act, which specifically targets plastic debris. Plastic debris is especially troublesome as marine species can become entangled in plastic products and frequently mistake the products for food. The "California Marine Debris Action Plan" (Action Plan) cites 55% of the trash on California's beaches as plastic (Center for Marine Conservation, 1990). This Action Plan made 22 recommendations for addressing enforcement of existing laws, educating the public, conducting more research, and enacting new legislation. Pollution from watercraft involves the disposal of garbage, sludge, and vessel sewage. The U.S. Coast Guard is the federal agency charged with enforcing regulations for trash disposal at sea and requirements for sewageholding tanks aboard vessels. Unfortunately, enforcing these regulations is logistically difficult. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have regulatory authority in marinas, but limited resources are available for enforcement. An innovative approach to reducing pollution from watercraft in port or at sea is the Marine Debris Recycling and Education Program (MDREP) founded by the nonprofit Coastal Resources Center. This program provides educational and technical assistance to facilities (marinas, ports, and harbors) and the public to help minimize the disposal of solid waste and oil into the marine environment. The first program to pioneer solid waste recycling at public marinas, the MDREP has produced a"(-**'" guidebook titled, "Launching a Recycling Program at Your Marina." Current program participants include the Marin County marinas, Pillar Point Harbor in Half Moon Bay, and San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf and Pier 47. The MDREP receives its support from the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling and the Marin Community Foundation. Other efforts to address ocean pollution strive to increase public awareness through education, recycling, and coastal cleanups. For instance, the Coastal Commission's AdoptaBeach program organizes thousands of volunteers, hundreds of public and private sponsors, as well as city, county, state, and federal agencies to participate in beach cleanup and ocean resource education. Under this program beaches are adopted by school groups, civic organizations, corporations, and recreation groups who commit to keeping these areas clean year round. The State Legislature supports this program and annually designates a statewide beach cleanup day and a coastweeks education and awareness program. While the Department of Conservation and Coastal Commission have provided a portion of the program's support over the years, corporate sponsors have increasingly become the main funding source. Ocean litter and debris is part of the much larger solid waste disposal problem in California. The Integrated Waste Management Board administers the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC 40000 et seq.) which requires all California cities and counties to reduce their waste stream by 25% no later than 1995 and by 50% no later than the year 2000. In addition, the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling administers the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Abatement Act of 1987 (PRC 14500 et seq.), which places a California Redemption Value on selected beverage containers. Data from the annual AdoptaBeach Coastal Cleanup indicates that beverage containers dropped from 13.1% of beach trash in 1988 to 3.9% in 1991. This data supports continuing the redemption and education programs, which can substantially  Y-reduce marine debris resulting from litter on beaches, at sea, or on streets.  a|<9],4` <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@,4`  <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@ 9] ,4` <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@,4` <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@ 9]  # P7P#FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS #Xx P7;XP#  Xo- Finding  UA<   Nonpoint source pollution, or polluted runoff, is arguably the State's most significant source of  Y*<water pollution, impairing estuaries, bays, and nearshore waters.  An extensive system to regulate point source pollution has been in place for many years. However, reducing nonpoint source pollution in California requires the renewed commitment and cooperation of federal, State, and local agencies, local landuse interests, the private sector, and the broader public in the complicated task of managing entire watersheds. Implementing both Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act will require a longterm financial commitment from the federal government to assist California in meeting these federal mandates.  Uv%< Recommendation B1.4 Conduct a thorough inventory and assessment of all ongoing watershed  Y_&<management projects that impact California's ocean ecosystem.  The majority of this information exists, but it has not been compiled in one place for the purpose of comprehensive ocean water quality management. This information should be made accessible through the California")-**(" Environmental Resources Evaluation System, the data management system developed at the Resources Agency. T$  X-  U<Recommendation B2.4 Pursue new and innovative approaches to watershed management, such as watershed conservation banks, which maximize results and the efficiency  Y<of expenditures. Water quality goals may potentially be met more effectively through existing permit processes by allowing municipalities or other permit applicants to mitigate their project impacts at regional conservation banks. This approach could yield greater benefits for water quality at reduced costs.T$  U < Recommendation B3.4 Pursue more technical and financial assistance from the federal government for supporting California's efforts to develop nonpoint pollution strategies pursuant to Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 and Section 319 of the Clean Water  Y <Act.  Solutions to nonpoint source pollution require extensive coordination and cooperation among a wide variety of participants. This level of coordination cannot be maintained without additional federal assistance.T$  XS- Finding  U%< The State of California does not have a system to comprehensively monitor water quality in the  Y<inland watershed, enclosed waters, or nearshore ocean zones.  Sound water quality management decisions require a solid base of information collected from a variety of sources. Most of the existing monitoring programs are designed to measure the impacts of point source pollutant loads. However, the majority of California's waterways and small estuarine systems are not monitored on a regular basis. Improved monitoring will be necessary for the State of California to achieve a systematic understanding of nonpoint source pollution and to measure the effect of efforts to reduce this water pollution source.  UZ< Recommendation B4.4 Inventory existing water quality monitoring efforts and use this information to develop a comprehensive water quality monitoring program  Y,<for coastal streams, bays, estuaries, and nearshore ocean waters.  The monitoring data from federal, State, and local governments, and other sources of technical information, should be made accessible through the California Environmental Resources Evaluation System. The water quality monitoring program should include the following:,4` <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@, <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@T$  Y"-, <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@,N z <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@N N / z z an evaluation of mechanisms for providing technical and financial assistance to local governments to monitor water quality within watersheds;T$z  YJ&-N N / z z an evaluation of the effectiveness and potential expansion of citizen water quality monitoring efforts, if quality assurance and control issues for data collection can be developed and implemented; andT$z ")-**P("Ԍ Y-N N / z z development of a standard protocol for sampling and data collection methods to ensure that the information generated will be useful to water quality decision makers.T$z  X- ,N z <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@,4` N <DL!T$&)\+- 0d247l9;>t@ Finding  Uv< Several successful programs have been developed by government agencies and nonprofit groups to  Y_<reduce marine debris on California beaches and in the ocean.  These programs include recycling, bottle redemption, beach cleanups, and educational efforts. Many recommendations included in the "California Marine Debris Action Plan" are being pursued, such as establishing educational campaigns, providing grants to cities for promoting recycling, and collecting data on the types of trash found on beaches. These efforts and others that target control of marine debris should be continued.