February 8, 2017

1

Introduce for public review and comment on the updates to the Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) List and 305(b) Report (the Integrated Report) for the Santa Ana Region http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d.shtml Written Public Comments: Deadline: 5:00 pm, Monday, March 6, 2017

2

Regulatory Background Integrated Report Process Assessment Results Next Steps

3

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to

• Develop a list of waterbody segments that are not meeting water quality standards

• Submit the statewide 303(d) List to USEPA for approval

• Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or TMDL alternatives

4

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires States to

• Report to USEPA on the conditions of its waters every other year (the 305(b) Report)

USEPA compiles the state’s assessment reports into their “Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS)” Changes to the 305(b) Report do not require USEPA approval.

5

6

The Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (SWRCB, 2004, amended 2015)

Provides guidelines for the water quality assessment process and establishes a standard approach for developing California’s 303(d) list

7

Develop Decisions

Develop Lines of Evidence

Compare data against relevant objectives/criteria/guidelines

Solicit data and evaluate data quality

8

Gather all readily available data and information January 14, 2010 – August 30, 2010

Data collected after August 30, 2010 AND submitted to California Environmental Data Exchange Center (CEDEN)

Will be assessed for the 2022 IR cycle R8 can identify priority waterbodies and pollutants for off-cycle assessments before 2022

9

Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objectives CA Toxics Rule CA Ocean Plan Evaluation Guidelines

10

Summarize data Beneficial use Pollutant Assess against applicable water quality standards/criteria/guidelines Number of samples Number of exceedances

11

Combine Lines of Evidence into Fact Sheets Determine 303(d) list status

Compare exceedance rates with requirements in Listing Policy

For waterbody/pollutants on the 303(d) list Establish the TMDL development schedule Where sources are identified, provide them in the 303(d) list

12

For each waterbody and all beneficial uses Assigned one of three “use ratings”

Fully Supporting Insufficient Information Not Supporting

13

Category 1: All assessed beneficial uses supported and no beneficial uses known to be impaired

Category 2: Insufficient information to determine beneficial use support

Category 3: There is insufficient information to determine beneficial use support BUT data indicate uses may be threatened

14

Category 4: At least one beneficial use is not supported but a TMDL is not needed

4a: TMDL already approved or established by USEPA 4b: Another regulatory program is expected to attain water quality standards 4c: Waterbody impairment is the result of pollution and not caused by a pollutant

Category 5: At least one beneficial use is not supported and a TMDL is needed

15

2012 (R1, R6, R7)

RB approval Aug, June,

March 2014

SB approval April 2015

USEPA approval

July 30, 2015

2014 (R3, R5, R9)

RB approval Dec, Dec and

Oct 2016

SB approval Anticipate July

2017

USEPA approval

TBD

2016 (R2, R4, R8)

RB8 approval March 2017

SB approval Anticipate July

2017

USEPA approval

TBD

2010 Data Solicitation

July 2016 R2, R4 and R8 started decision making process

16

Why March 2017?

2012 (R1, R6, R7)

RB approval Aug, June,

March 2014

SB approval April 2015

USEPA approval

July 30, 2015

2014 (R3, R5, R9)

RB approval Dec, Dec and

Oct 2016

SB approval Anticipate July

2017

USEPA approval

TBD

2016 (R2, R4, R8)

RB approval March 2017

SB approval Anticipate July

2017

USEPA approval

TBD

No approval March 17,

2017 Hearing

17

18

1079 fact sheets 2504 lines of evidence 153 total 303(d) listings

33 new listings to 303(d) list 14 delistings

19

Category Number of Waterbody Segments

1 24

2 71

3 1

303(d) list

4a 1

4b 0

4c 0

5 57

20

General pollutants replaced by specific pollutants Toxicity fact sheets combine sediment and water data Waterbody segments split/re-mapped

21

22

Bioassessment is an evaluation of the condition of a waterbody based on the organisms present in the water. Santa Ana BP Narrative: Inland surface water communities and populations, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, shall not be degraded as a result of the discharge of waste. Degradation is damage to an aquatic community or population with the result that balanced community no longer exists.

23

Southern California Index of Biotic Integrity Regionally scaled multi-metric index Score >56, Similar to “Least Disturbed” Score <40, Likely disturbed

24

Applicable Statewide

Score ≥0.92

Likely intact condition

Score < 0.79 Likely Altered

25

Statewide Index (CSCI) used over Regional Index where available Add to 303(d) list when

Available scores showing benthic community is “Likely degraded” AND Associated with chemical concentrations, temperature, dissolved oxygen, trash and other pollutants

26

Past decisions to list/delist/not list, often identified the specific indicator bacteria that was analyzed. State Board has decided to consolidate all pathogen Lines of Evidence for a waterbody segment into a single “Indicator Bacteria” decision.

27

In 2012, US EPA released revised recreational marine water quality criteria to be based on Enterococcus. Both State Board and the Santa Ana Regional Board are in the process of revising the REC-1 beneficial use. To maintain a uniform approach for the 3 sets of Regional Boards, State Board evaluated all forms of Indicator Bacteria for both geomeans and single sample maximums. It is anticipated that Enterococcus will be used to evaluate REC-1 marine Indicator Bacteria for the next Region 8 Integrated Report cycle.

28

Removed the fecal coliform objectives for REC-1. Established REC-1 E. coli geomean and 4 tiers of single sample maximum objectives. Geomean objective based on at least 5 samples during a 30-day period. Identified that single sample maximum objectives should only be used when data are insufficient to calculate geomeans.

29

Provided for high flow suspension of the REC-1 beneficial use. Removed the REC-1 beneficial use designation from certain waterbody segments based on Use Attainability Analyses.

Removed the indicator bacteria objectives associated to the municipal drinking water use (MUN).

30

Adopted by the Regional Board in 2012 and approved by USEPA in 2015. State Board staff had written most of the Lines of Evidence prior to 2015, so numerous changes were required. Lines of Evidence based on Fecal coliform, Enterococcus and Total Coliform were no longer used in the listing process for fresh waters.

31

Where there was sufficient E. coli data to make a decision, that decision was made solely on E. coli data (based on ssm if geomeans could not be calculated) Where there was insufficient E. coli data:

If new non-E. coli indicator bacteria data would have resulted in a new listing, no new listing was made. If a waterbody was already listed, based on past non-E. coli indicator bacteria, that listing was left in place and will be reviewed during the next Region 8 cycle (estimated 2022).

Lines of Evidence based on Fecal Coliform, Enterococcus and Total Coliform will be retired during the next Region 8 cycle.

32

Removal of REC-1 Beneficial Use Cucamonga Creek Reach 1 Santa Ana Delhi Channel

Consideration of only E. coli data Canyon Lake Lytle Creek Mill Creek Reach 2 Silverado Creek

Revised tiered E. coli SSM objective based on use Santa Ana River Reach 2

33

LAKE MATHEWS/Mercury - It was pointed out that State Board had written two Lines of Evidence on the same data. Correcting for this results in a proposed decision NOT TO LIST, based on insufficient data. NEWPORT BAY, UPPER – Appendix A does not identify the delisting for Metals. CUCAMONGA CREEK R1 - The Staff report (Appendix A) does not identify that it’s Reach 1. HUNTINGTON BEACH STATE PARK - The Staff report (Appendix A), identifies Huntington Beach State Park as a new delisting, it was in fact first delisted in the 2010 cycle and remains delisted.

34

Written Comment Period –January 26, 2017 to March 6, 2017 Public Hearing and consideration of recommendation approval at the next Regional Board Meeting –March 17, 2017 Submit to the State Water Board for approval at a Public Hearing – anticipate July 2017 State Water Board submit the combined lists to USEPA for approval

35

Heather Boyd, (951) 320-2006 Heather.Boyd@waterboards.ca.gov

Mary Bartholomew, (951) 321-4586 Mary.Bartholomew@waterboards.ca.gov

Mark Smythe, (951) 782-4998 Mark.Smythe@waterboards.ca.gov

36