presentation outline...december 8- 9, 2016 central coast water board public hearing july 2017? state...
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]
Photo: Santa Maria River Estuary April 2006