1

Presentation Outline

Federal and State Requirements

Timeline

Results

Public Comments

Conclusion & Recommendation

2

Clean Water Act Requirements

Section 303(d) States develop a list of waterbodies that are polluted USEPA approval Establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) or

TMDL alternatives

Section 305(b) Report to USEPA on the conditions of its waters

Does not require approval

Integrated Report = 303(d) List + 305(b) Report

3

California’s Policy for Developing the 303(d) List

The “Listing Policy” 1. Gather available data 2. Evaluate data quality/utility 3. Identify relevant criteria 4. Develop lines of evidence

Compare data to criteria Summarize data (where, when, how many)

5. Develop fact sheets Make decision about 303(d) List status

4

California’s Policy for Developing the 303(d) List

The “Listing Policy”

6. TMDL development schedule 7. Public review & comment 8. Approval by Regional & State Water Boards

5

2014 Integrated Report

Timeline

6

Timeline for the Central Coast Region

Time Period Task(s)

January 14, 2010 – August 30, 2010

Gather available data (Public Data Solicitation)

September 2010 – October 2013

Develop data assessments statewide

November 2013 – March 2015

Define new timeline and approach Pause assessment work for Central Coast Region

7

State’s New Timeline & Approach

8

Integrated Report Cycle

Regional Water Board Groups

2012 Integrated Report Approved by USEPA on July 30, 2015

North Coast Water Board Lahontan Water Board Colorado River Basin Water Board

2014 Integrated Report (in process, estimated approval Dec 2016)

Central Coast Water Board Central Valley Water Board San Diego Water Board

2016 Integrated Report (in process, estimated approval June 2017)

San Francisco Bay Water Board Los Angeles Water Board Santa Ana Water Board

Timeline for the Central Coast Region

Time Period Task March 2015 - August 2016 Resume data assessments

August 22, 2016 Public Comment Period begins

September 14, 2016 Public Workshop to receive public comments

September 23, 2016 Public Comment Period ends

December 8-9, 2016 Central Coast Water Board Public Hearing

July 2017? State Water Board Public Hearing

TBD USEPA review and approval

9

2014 303(d) List vs Previous 303(d) Lists

10

2006 2008/ 2010

2014 * 2020

Number of Lines of Evidence 382 11,719 23,055 ##?

Number of Decisions 286 3,640 5,431 ##?

Number on 303(d) List 222 712 922 ##?

*2014 Integrated Report based on data submitted in 2010

Utilizing Newer Data? Data collected after August 2010 AND submitted to CEDEN

Used by programs (TMDL, permits, etc.)

Evaluated & available for the public (CCAMP website)

Will be considered in the next Integrated Report update

Exception: Data that doesn’t fit into CEDEN also useable

11

2014 Integrated Report Assessment Results

12

2014 Integrated Report Decisions Summary

No. of Decisions Type of Decision

83 De-list (remove from 303(d) List)

922 List (add or remain on 303(d) List)

4,426 Do not list

5,431 Total for 2014 Integrated Report

13

2014 303(d) List Pollutants

14

2008/2010 Pollutants vs 2014 Pollutants

15

2014 303(d) List Pollutant Sources

16

Potential Sources Percent of Listings Number of Listings

Grazing 3% 28

Collection System Failure 5% 47

Natural Sources 13% 114

Urban/Storm Water 13% 118

Domestic Animals / Livestock 14% 126

Agriculture 21% 191

Source Unknown* 66% 604

*New for 2014 - sources identified only when a source analysis (such as a TMDL) has been completed

2014 303(d) List TMDL Prioritization

TMDL Completion

Date

Priority for TMDL

Completion

Number of

Listings Completed USEPA Approved 298

2018 High 59

2023 Medium 116

2027 Low 449 Total 922

17

2014 305(b) Water Quality Condition Report 388 Waterbody Segments -71 Good quality - 92 Insufficient information - 2 Potentially threatened - 223 Polluted

18

305(b) Water Quality Condition Report

Condition 2008/2010 2014

Good quality & insufficient information 158 163

Potentially threatened NA 2

Polluted 179 223

Total No. Waterbodies 337 388

19

2014 Integrated Report Public Comments

20

Public Comments

Public Workshop held September 14, 2016 Public Comment Period

Received 9 letters Provided written responses to 59 comments

Additional communications via e-mail and phone 3 post comment period documents

21

Public Comments - Key Topics

Support for some recommendations Errors Data not used Age of data used Information volume & format Comment period length Flow alteration Evaluation guidelines

22

Public Comments – Errors

Commenter identified 8 errors E. coli data from beaches incorrectly assessed

statewide Opposition to de-list beaches using this assessment

Outcome

Revised 8 decisions from “de-list,” to “list”

23

Public Comments – Data Not Used

Commenters identified data submitted/not assessed No record of receiving data Data quality issues Prioritized low based on timeline and available resources

Non-CEDEN formats No criteria or assessment methodology

Outcome

Majority of these data remain unassessed

24

Public Comments – Age of Data Used

Commenters concern - data used is old

Outcome No changes to assessment Per State Water Board Resolution 2015-0005

Used allowable data (those submitted in 2010) Data submitted to CEDEN after solicitation deadline (2010)

considered in next Integrated Report update

25

Public Comments – Volume and Format of Information Commenters concern - Fact Sheet document

More than 21,000 pages Not user friendly

Commenters concern - 30 day comment period

Outcomes Worked with users to provide guidance Working with State Board staff to improve process

26

Public Comments – Flow Alteration

Commenter requested assessment of flow alteration for 5 waterbodies Assessment of flow causing impacts to aquatic life Change 305(b) Report Category Sources of impact include flow alteration

Outcome

No changes for 3 waterbodies Added Fact Sheet for flow alteration in Carmel River Revised Category for Carmel & Big Sur Rivers

27

Public Comments – Evaluation Guidelines

Commenter questioned use of evaluation guidelines to interpret narrative water quality objectives for aquatic life

Outcome No changes to the assessments Objectives and evaluation guidelines meet the requirements

of the California Listing Policy

28

Public Comments –Evaluation Guidelines Commenter questioned evaluation guidelines for

temperature

Outcome No changes to the assessments Objectives and evaluation guidelines meet the

requirements of the California Listing Policy Partner agencies confirmed the evaluation guideline is

appropriate

29

Conclusions – 2014 Integrated Report Update builds on the 2008/2010 Integrated Report

Updates are based on data submitted by 2010

Informs priority and timing for programs

Programs evaluate all data (including new data)

TMDL priorities aligned with Central Coast priorities

Working with State Board to improve process 30

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution R3-2016-0053

approving the 2014 303(d) List for the Central Coast Region

31

Mary S. Hamilton 805-542-4768 or Mary.Hamilton@waterboards.ca.gov

Photo: Santa Maria River Estuary April 2006