949.489.0150 (FAX)
| 949.489.7676 |
|
949.489.0150 (FAX) |
TO: SCAP Member Agencies, Water Issues Committee
FROM: Raymond C. Miller, Executive Director
DATE: November 14, 2005
The State Water Resources Control Board released the Draft 2006 Section 303 (d) List on September 30, 2005. This List of impaired water bodies could cause you to be a part of a TMDL. If you are unfamiliar with the Section 303 (d) List, the attached Review Tips and Checklist will give you background and a methodology to use to go step by step through the material. SCAP has polled some of our members and the consensus is that each agency needs to review the listing and delisting on an individual basis to see if the listing or delisting for your area coincides with your agency's evaluation or data.
If you have new data that you want considered, the workshop is the time to present your information. The Workshop announcement does not preclude new data being submitted for the SWRCB's consideration.
SCAP would like to receive a copy of any comments that you present. Please provide your comments to SCAP no later than Monday, November 28 th . We will then compile a record for a formal comment letter from SCAP to the SWRCB.
Link: www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_update.html
Important Date: Thursday, December 1, 2005, 10:00 a. m. - SWRCB 303 (d) Workshop
Location: Hilton Pasadena Hotel
168 South Los Robles Avenue
Pasadena, CA
SCAP encourages all the Water Issues Committee members to attend in lieu of a December Water Issues Committee meeting.
For questions or assistance on this issue, please contact Mary Jane Foley at mfoley@scap1.org
INTRODUCTION
The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) released the Draft 2006 Section 303d List on September 30, 2005. If you are unfamiliar with the Section 303d List, see the background provided by the State Board below:
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone. Applicable standards include the designated beneficial uses, the adopted water quality objectives, and the State's antidegradation policy. The section 303(d) list must include the water quality limited segments, associated pollutants, and a priority ranking of the waters for purposes of developing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the next two years. A TMDL is the maximum load of a pollutant that can be discharged from point and nonpoint sources without exceeding water quality standards. States are required to submit the section 303(d) list and TMDL priorities to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for approval. The 2006 section 303(d) list is due to USEPA by April 2006.
In short, this document lists all the waterbodies (lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) that are not meeting water quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires that a TMDL be created for every pollutant-waterbody combination on this list. A TMDL, when created by the State Board, includes an implementation plan and schedule that often requires costly treatment upgrades and/or studies to be performed by discharges into that waterbody. Listing alone may lead to restrictive "interim" requirements on dischargers to the waterbody during the period prior to TMDL adoption.
Since the implications of a waterbody being included on the 303d List can be costly, it is critical that unnecessary listings not be included. This ensures that true water quality problems are addressed and funds are not wasted where waterbodies already meet water quality standards. Below is a checklist that can assist in your review of the draft list to verify that listings of waterbodies of interest to your agency are properly listed.
CHECKLIST
1. Was the listing performed in accordance with the State Board Listing Policy (Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List)?
This is the overarching question. In September 2004, the State Board approved a policy to determine how the Section 303d List is created. Although this policy does provide some flexibility, it established certain criteria for when water bodies should be listed or de-listed. . If the proposed listing is inconsistent with the policy or does not follow its guidelines, the water body has not been properly listed. The remaining items on this checklist attempt to highlight some areas where a listing may have strayed from the Listing Policy.
2. Is the correct Beneficial Use (BU) indicated?
The basis of each 303d listing is that the water quality standard for a pollutant is not being attained. The Water quality standard consists of the designated Beneficial Use (BU) and the criterion or objective to protect that use. Thus, you should verify that the beneficial use indicated in the 303d List fact sheet is consistent with the Basin Plan for your region. For example, if a listing shows that the BU impaired is MUN - Municipal and Domestic Drinking, but the Basin Plan for your region does not indicate this use for the waterbody, this is an incorrect listing.
3. Is the correct Water Quality Objective/Criterion indicated?
As stated above, the basis of each 303d listing is that the water body is not meeting an applicable Water Quality Objective/Criterion (WQO) for protection of that use. Typically the WQO is based on the California Toxics Rule (CTR) or a Basin Plan Objective. Verify that these numbers are correctly applied. The Listing Policy provides for some flexibility when evaluating narrative criteria, however the policy requires the selection of representative "Evaluation Guidelines" for interpretation of narrative water quality objectives for listing/de-listing purposes. Section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy contains the provisions for selecting an appropriate Evaluation Guideline. Acceptable guidelines for evaluating sediment quality, fish tissue levels, and other parameters are described in this section of the policy.
4. Were all data sets submitted included in the analysis?
The fact sheet for the listing will indicate the Data Used To Assess Water Quality. Are all samples submitted by your agency or others in your watershed included in this data set? Do you know of other data that were not included? The State should be looking at all existing and readily available data. Further, data that should be considered by the SWRCB is not limited to data submitted in response to SWRCB/RWQCB data solicitations for development of the 303d list (i.e., data and information previously submitted to the RWQCBs, such as Discharger Monitoring Reports, are considered to be "readily available" and were not required to be submitted again during the data solicitation process). See Listing Policy Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2.
5. Is the math right?
The fact sheet indicates the number of samples not meeting WQO under Data Used To Assess Water Quality. To determine if the pollutant meets the exceedance criteria to be considered impaired or not impaired, refer to the tables in the Listing Policy. Table 3.1 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy contain the minimum number of measured exceedances needed to place a water segment on the 303d list for toxicants, and conventional pollutants, respectively . Tables 4.1 and 4.2 in Section 4 of the policy contain the maximum number of measured exceedances allowed to remove a water segment from the 303d list for toxicants, and conventional pollutants, respectively.
Note that for the de-listing tables, a minimum sample size of 28 samples (for toxicants) or 26 samples (for conventional pollutants) is required for the water body to be considered for de-listing. It may be worthwhile to review existing listings (i.e., older listings that have been carried over to the 2006 draft 303d list), to see if they meet the criteria for de-listing under the provisions of the Listing Policy.
6. Was there adequate data quality assurance?
Numeric data are considered credible and relevant for listing purposes only if the data set submitted meets the minimum quality assurance/quality control requirements. If there is data used in the determination of a listing that is unfamiliar, request a copy of the data from State Water Board staff (see below for contact information). See Listing Policy Section 6.1.4.
7. Is the listing based on weight of evidence?
A listing may be the result of a "weight of evidence" determination (see Listing Policy 6.11). That is, when all other listing factors do not result in the listing of a water segment but information indicates non-attainment of standards, a water segment may be listed if the weight of evidence demonstrates that a water quality standard is not attained. If the weight of evidence approach is used for the listing, the State Board must justify the determination by:
8. Proper spatial/temporal representation?
Was the data collected from a site that is heavily influenced by a source so that it is no longer spatially representative? Were all exceedances a result of a single storm event? See Listing Policy Sections 6.1.5.2 and 6.1.5.3.
9. Was hardness taken into account?
If hardness was considered, how? The hardness value used in the calculation will alter the WQO for metals. Metals WQOs are calculated in accordance with a formula contained in the CTR.
10. If the listing is a "nuisance" listing rather than a pollutant, is there another line of evidence showing an impairment?
A qualitative listing nuisance for conditions must be associated with numerical water quality data where: (1) an "acceptable evaluation guideline" is exceeded or (2) a nuisance condition exists when compared with reference conditions, or (3) when nutrient concentrations cause or contribute to excessive algae growth. The most important aspect is to verify that any nuisance listing is associated with numerical water quality data. See Listing Policy Section 3.7.
Additional Information from the State Water Resources Control Board
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 2006 SECTION 303(d) LIST
The State Water Board staff solicited, assembled, and considered all readily available data and information. A public solicitation of data and information from State and federal agencies, and from other interested parties, was begun in April 2004. This public data solicitation was concluded in June 2004. The data received generally covered the period of 2001 to early 2004. Some data were submitted that addressed pre-2002 listings. Data (through March 2005) from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) were included in the record. Other sources of data and information that became readily available to State Water Board staff were also included in the administrative record.
All data and information was reviewed using the listing and delisting factors in the Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California's Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (Listing Policy). The Listing Policy identifies the process by which the State Water Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards will comply with the listing requirements of CWA Section 303(d). The Listing Policy became effective in December 2004. The Listing Policy was used to make listing/delisting recommendations, which are summarized in fact sheets developed by State Water Board staff. In general, fact sheets were developed for all waters and pollutants where water quality standards were not attained.
A draft Staff Report (report) has been developed documenting recommendations for additions, deletions, and changes to the 2002 California section 303(d) list. Recommendations are also made for when TMDLs will be completed. The report provides a summary of list changes and the State Water Board staff analysis of data and information. Two additional staff reports were also developed for waters and pollutants where the recommendations were "Do Not List" or "Do Not Delist."
AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT STAFF REPORTS ON REVISION OF THE SECTION 303(d) LIST
The draft Staff Reports supporting the revision of the section 303(d) list are posted on the State Water Board Web site at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_update.html. You may also receive a copy on CD-R of the draft Staff Reports by contacting:
Dorena Goding
Water Quality Assessment Unit
Division of Water Quality
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
916-341-5596
FAX: (916) 341-5550
Email: dgoding@waterboards.ca.gov
SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS
The State Water Board encourages that all comments on the proposed changes to the section 303(d) list be submitted by email, mail, or fax, postmarked no later than 5:00 p.m., December 6, 2005. Oral comments will be accepted at 2 workshops, one on December 1, 2005 in Pasadena and one on December 6, 2005 in Sacramento. Time limitations on presentations may be imposed. The State Water Board requests that oral testimony be summarized. Persons with similar views are encouraged to make joint presentations. All comments received will be considered by the State Water Board before considering adoption of a revised section 303(d) list.
Written comments should be submitted to:
Craig J. Wilson, Chief
Water Quality Assessment Unit
Division of Water Quality
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
FAX: (916) 341-5550
Email: cjwilson@waterboards.ca.gov
Resources:
State Water Resources Control Board 2006 303(d) List documents:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_update.html
State Water Resources Control Board 303(d) Listing Policy:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/303d_listing.html
EPA California Toxics Rule and associated documents:
http://www.epa.gov/OST/standards/ctrindex.html
You may also wish to review the Basin Plan for your region. These can be accessed through the SWRCB's website (www.swrcb.ca.gov) by clicking the link to the appropriate Regional Board.