Staff Report for Regular Meeting of December 7, 2001

State of California

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Central Coast Region

Staff Report for Regular Meeting of December 7, 2001

Item Number: 25

Subject: Water Quality Control Plan - Triennial Review Priority List

Summary

The Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) guides activities of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and staff by identifying beneficial uses, setting water quality objectives and criteria, requiring implementation plans for the protection of beneficial uses, and monitoring to ensure protection of beneficial uses. The purpose of the Triennial Review Priority List process is to identify and prioritize Basin Plan issues in the Central Coast Region for use in updating and amending the Basin Plan. Staff have developed and prioritized a preliminary list of issues, considering Federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requests/directives/mandates, State Water Resources Control Board issues, Regional Board staff issues, Watershed Management Initiative issues, comments from other interested persons and organizations on previously identified issues, and availability of staff resources.This list is presented to the Board for review and consideration.

Discussion

The federal Clean Water Act (Section 303 (c)) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act require the Basin Plan to be reviewed and updated periodically (at a minimum every three years). The Regional Board review process includes identification of issues that may enhance water quality protection and presentation of a priority list of issues at a public hearing. The priority list of issues, referred to as the Triennial Review Priority List, includes:

• A (generalized) ranking of water quality issues;
• A brief description of each water quality issue;
• Identification of water quality issues that can be completed with existing resource allocations over a three-year period¹; and
• Identification of water quality issues requiring additional resources to complete.

Following public hearing and adoption of the Triennial Review Priority List, Regional Board staff investigate each priority issue, including development of a detailed work plan for each issue, to determine the need for a Basin Plan amendment². However, investigation of an issue on the Triennial Review Priority List does not necessarily mean a revision of the Basin Plan will be recommended to the Board. Additionally, priority issues that result in a Basin Plan amendment do not become effective until approved by the Regional Board, the State Board, and the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) [Administrative Procedures Act, Government Code ss11340 et seq.]. Surface water standards also require the approval of the USEPA to become effective.

The preliminary 2001 Triennial Review Priority List of issues to be presented for Board for review and consideration is shown in Attachment A. As noted above, topics on the list were developed while considering USEPA requests/directives/mandates, State Water Resources Control Board issues, Regional Board staff issues, Watershed Management Initiative issues, input from other interested persons/organizations, and availability of staff resources.

Public input was requested in an August 24, 2001 letter (Attachment D) to individuals and organizations on the Basin Plan mailing list (There are approximately 350 addresses on the mailing list). A Notice of Public Hearing was also published in several newspapers throughout the Central Coast Region at approximately the same time.

1998-2001 Basin Planning Activities

Presented below is a status report of high priority Basin Plan tasks previously identified by the Regional Board during the 1998 Triennial Review process (1998 Triennial Review Priority List - Attachment B). Basin Planning activities performed over the last three years are discussed below:

1. Develop Region-Wide Nonpoint Source Management Measures (Priority One, 1998 Triennial Review Priority List)
   Staff intends to prepare a draft resolution for Regional Board consideration in June 2002.
2. Basin planning staff were used extensively (through July 1, 2000) to perform high priority Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) tasks. The following 1998 Triennial Review Priority List priority tasks were conducted:
   
   

   Task	Type of Action	Estimated Time (Staff years and Duration)	Status	Comments
   Priority
   2. Develop Carbonara Creek, Lompico Creek, and San Lorenzo River Nutrient TMDL		6 months	Adopted by RWQCB 9/15/2000	Pending review and consideration by State Board
   3. Develop San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL		6 months	Draft technical TMDL to EPA 6/2000	Revised TMDL to be completed 6/2002 Implementation Plan to be completed 6/03
   7. Develop Chorro Creek, Los Osos Creek, and Morro Bay Siltation TMDL		3 months/ 2 years	Draft TMDL to EPA/Stakeholders 11/2000	Revisions completed 6/2001. Will be presented to the Regional Board 6/2002.
   8. Develop Las Tablas Creek; Las Tablas Creek, North Fork; Las Tablas Creek, South Fork; and Nacimiento Reservoir for Mercury TMDL		4 months/2 years	Draft TMDL to EPA 6/2000	Revisions completed 6/2001. Presentation to the Regional Board delayed.
   14. Develop Morro Bay Pathogen TMDL		3 months/ 2 years	Problem statement and numeric target to EPA 6/2000	DNA study to be completed 09/2001 Revisions to be completed 12/2001 and sent to Board 12/2002.
   24. Develop Salinas River and Salinas River Lagoon (North) Siltation TMDL		1 year/ 3 years	Problem statement to EPA 6/2000	Technical support for TMDL contracted out on 09/2000. Preliminary results due 11/2001

3. Other Activities
   • Basin planning staff were used extensively to perform additional high priority tasks. Basin Plan resources were used to process on-site sewage disposal system Basin Plan exemption requests, fund Salinas watershed management activities, prepare the Central Coast Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) Chapter and further develop priority TMDL’s identified on the 1998 Triennial Review List (TMDL work received dedicated funding July 1, 2000). Appendix E contains a summary of the current status of TMDL activities.

Future Staff Resources

The preliminary 2001 Triennial Review Priority List in Attachment A includes a column entitled "Estimated Time (Staff Years and Duration)." For some topics, two different time periods are provided. The first number provides the staff time required to perform the task. The second number provides the total time frame to accomplish the task. For example, lengthy time frames are necessary when there is significant involvement from other individuals/organizations (such as developing statewide nonpoint source implementation measures) or when monitoring efforts are needed to complete a task.

Unless staff resources are increased, staff estimates priority surface water tasks 1, 2, 3a-d, 4a (status reports), 5, 6a-b, 7a-b, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 identified on the 2001 Triennial Review Priority List can be completed in the next three years (Task four will take longer than three years to complete). Similarly, staff estimates priority groundwater tasks 1, 2a-c, 3, 4a-b, 5, 6, 7a-b, and 8 can be completed in the next three years. Additional Basin Plan tasks, listed on pages 6 through 9 of Attachment A, cannot be completed unless additional staff resources become available.

The above estimates are consistent with the 2001 WMI Chapter, which states that Region 3 has limited resources available for region-wide Basin Planning activities. Dedicated Basin Planning funds have been used to hire staff to focus on surface and groundwater planning issues. However, to address additional high priority activities, more funding is needed than currently exists in the baseline budget, or will exist through additional anticipated resources. The WMI Chapter identifies 4.2 Project Years (PY’s) of unfunded Basin Planning work in fiscal year 2001/2002.

Environmental Summary

A Notice of Public Hearing has been circulated. A Notice of Filing, Written Report, and Environmental Checklist will be prepared and circulated to interested agencies and persons prior to consideration of any Basin Plan amendment. This will satisfy the environmental documentation requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act, under Public Resources Code Section 21080.5 and the Federal Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 92-500 and PL 95-217).

Comments

Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Environmental Health Services

1. Comment: We recommend that issues related to beneficial use designations of local Santa Barbara County watersheds be reviewed within the next 3 years.
   
   Response: Beneficial use designations for all waters in the Central Coast Region were reviewed in 1992. Revised beneficial use designations were incorporated into the September 8, 1994 update of the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan, resulting in a large number of new waters and beneficial use designations. Significant resources were utilized for this task under a one-time contract allocation. Current funding limitations will not allow for further review and revision of beneficial use designations for waters in Santa Barbara County during the 2001 Triennial Review Process.
   
   Although there is no task on the 2001 Triennial Review List for review of surface water beneficial use designations, if the County of Santa Barbara is aware of more detailed data that would allow for a revised designation for a particular water body, please provide this information to the Regional Board. Staff is willing to evaluate new data and recommend amendment of the Basin Plan as necessary within staffing constraints.

2. Comment: Board staff is predicting that revision of the beneficial use designations will not occur in the next three years due to limited resources.To accomplish the revision of the "beneficial use designations," we recommend the Regional Board provide additional staff for this effort or elevate "the review beneficial use designations" on the priority list to ensure this task is completed with existing resources in the next three years.
   
   Response: Staff concurs with the prediction that revision of beneficial use designations will likely not occur during the next three years due to limited resources .Currently, there are no additional resources or staff budgeted for review and revision of beneficial use designations for waters in Santa Barbara County. Additionally, because beneficial use designations were addressed during the 1994 update of the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan, staff does not agree that further review and revision of beneficial use designations for waters in Santa Barbara County should be elevated above other high priority issues on the 2001 Triennial Review Priority List.

3. Comment: Under current Total Maximum Daily Load listing methodology (303 (d) list), there is no way to distinguish between impaired river segments and unimpaired river segments.
   
   

   Response: The "size affected" column on the 303 (d) list provides an estimate of the "segment" impaired. Developing the TMDL Problem Statement for a listed water body assesses and clarifies the "impairment" and it’s extent, not the listing.

   A description of the process and approach for 303 (d) listing for the current update of the 303 (d) List of Impaired Waters may be viewed on our web page at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/. On the web page click on programs, TMDL, 2001 303 D List Staff Report. A statewide effort to develop guidelines for 303(d) listing is underway. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Board staff will provide input to this process.

4. Comment: We recommend that Surface Water Task - Develop a Greenhouse Policy be elevated on the priority list to be completed within the next 3 years or that additional staff resources be provided to accomplish this task.
   
   Response: Board staff agrees that a Greenhouse Policy is important. However, without additional staff, funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address this task under the 2001 Triennial Review List.

5. Comment: Santa Barbara County supports the Board’s development of new surface water bacteria standards (Task #5 and Task #9).
   
   Response: Board staff appreciates Santa Barbara County support for these efforts.

Ocean Conservancy

6. Comment: We ask that the Regional Board direct staff to develop detailed guidance for the implementation of the anti-degradation policy for both point and nonpoint discharges. Additionally, we request that the guidance be incorporated in to the Basin Plan.
   
   Response: Staff agrees. However, additional funding is required to complete this task within the next 3 years. Board staff will place this task on the list of issues requiring additional funding.

Nipomo Community Services District

7. Comment: In reviewing the (1998) Triennial Review Priority List, Item # 31 – Develop a Nitrogen Management Plan for the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin and also Item #55 - Develop a Nitrogen Management Plan for the Arroyo Grande Groundwater Basin, the question arises, does either of these plans include the Nipomo Mesa or should a separate Nitrogen Management Plan be developed for the Nipomo Mesa.
   
   Response: Development of a region-wide Nitrogen Management Plan for all groundwater basins of the region is ranked as groundwater issue item #4 on the 2001 Triennial Review List (TRL) Attachment A).This general plan developed from the need for nitrogen management plans for at least 13 individual groundwater basins identified during the 1998 Triennial Review process (1998 TRL items #9, 16, 17, 31, 32, 54, 55, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, and 75). Following development of a general plan applicable to all groundwater basins of the region, including the Nipomo Mesa area, basin-specific nitrogen management measures may be considered for some groundwater basins.

8. Comment: Since there is a large concentration of greenhouses and auto wrecking operations on the Mesa, (1998) priority items #128 and #129 should be set higher, with respect to developing a management plan for the Nipomo Mesa.
   
   Response: Board staff agrees that a Greenhouse Policy and Auto-wrecking yard Policy are important. However, funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address these tasks under the 2001 Triennial Review List.

City of San Luis Obispo

9. Comment: The Basin Plan needs to be updated more frequently.
   
   Response:Board staff agrees. The intent of the 2001 Triennial Review List is to establish a list of tasks to be reviewed and incorporated as Basin Plan changes over the next three years.

10. Comment: MUN beneficial use designation should be reconsidered for some waters of the region as this designation leads to overly stringent regulation and requirements for a use that does not and will never exist for these waters.
    
    Response:Beneficial use designations were reviewed, revised, and incorporated into the September 8, 1994 update of the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan, resulting in a large number of new waters and beneficial use designations. Significant resources were utilized for this task under a one-time contract allocation. Current funding limitations will not allow for comprehensive review and revision of beneficial use designations during the 2001 Triennial Review Process. Additionally, SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63 "Sources of Drinking Water Policy" states that all surface and ground waters of the State are considered to be suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or domestic water supply and should be so designated by the Regional Boards.
    
    Although there is no task on the 2001 Triennial Review List for review of beneficial use designations, if the City of San Luis Obispo is aware of more detailed data that would allow for a revised designation for a particular water body, please provide this information to the Regional Board. Staff is willing to evaluate new data and recommend amendment of the Basin Plan as necessary within staffing constraints.

11. Comment: The City is requesting a RWQCB policy that calls for consistent application of Basin Plan requirements for permitted dischargers.
    
    Response:Staff agrees that application of Basin Plan requirements for discharger permits should be consistent. There is a statewide policy on consistency. There are statewide effort focusing on consistency and Regional Board staff are working on several efforts to ensure consistent implementation of Basin Plan standards.

12. Comment: The RWQCB should consider drafting a policy that allows the assignment of interim discharge limits for dischargers when compliance with a new law or more stringent requirement becomes law.
    
    Response:Establishment of limits, fixed or interim, requires Board action. All limits, fixed or interim, are applied with consideration of discharge specific conditions. A policy for interim discharge limits could be developed, however implementation of the policy for an individual permit would still require Board action.

13. Comment: The City is requesting the RWQCB ensure more stakeholder and interested party involvement in the development of TMDL’s.
    
    Response:Board staff agrees. We will take action to ensure stakeholder and interested party involvement in the development of TMDL’s.

14. Comment: The City is requesting the total chlorine residual objective task be given high priority.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees that a chlorine residual objective is important. However, funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address this task under the 2001 Triennial Review List.

Santa Barbara ChannelKeeper

15. Comment: Chapter 3, recommend the following changes to Section I. Considerations in Selecting Water Quality Objectives. The language in paragraph four should be revised. The discussion regarding point sources and nonpoint sources is inaccurate. It states that nonpoint sources include "urban drainage, agricultural runoff, road construction activities, mining" and other activities. Each of the quoted sources is, or can be, a point source.The Basin Plan’s focus should be on the means by which the water is conveyed, not on the source of that water. Discrete conveyances are point sources. Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act defines "point source" as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including, but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel … from which pollutants are or may be discharged."
    
    Response: Board staff disagrees. Chapter 3, Section I. Considerations in Selecting Water Quality Objectives, paragraph four, states, Nonpoint sources are waste loads resulting from land use practices where wastes are not collected and disposed of in any readily identifiable manner. Examples include: urban drainage, agricultural runoff, road construction activities, mining, grassland management, logging and other harvest activities, and natural sources such as effects of fire, flood, and landslide. The distinction between point sources and diffuse sources is not always clear but generally applies to the practicality of waste load control.
    
    This paragraph provides a general description of point and nonpoint water pollution sources. The paragraph distinguishes between point and nonpoint water pollution sources by stating that nonpoint water pollution sources "are not collected and disposed of in any readily identifiable manner," which is a reference to conveyance. There are instances where urban drainage, agricultural runoff, road construction activities, mining, and other activities are not collected and disposed of in any readily identifiable manner.

16. Comment:Chapter 3, Section II.A. Anti‑Degradation Policy ‑‑ Both EPA and State guidance documents should be referenced in this section. For example, staff should be directed to refer to the Water Quality Standards Handbook and Permit Writer’s Handbook. Moreover, while the language of Section II.A. does refer to Board Resolution No. 68‑16, it should articulate how staff should apply the policies articulated in the Resolution.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees. On the 2001 Triennial Review List there is no proposed task to develop detailed guidance for the implementation of the anti-degradation policy or reference both the EPA and State guidance documents. However, Board staff will place this task on the list of issues requiring additional funding for future work to be completed.

17. Comment: Chapter 3, Section II.A.2. Objectives for all Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries. A numeric effluent limit should be assigned for each of the objectives as applied to each beneficial use. The most stringent water quality criteria available (CTR, NTR, ocean plan, or basin plan) should apply for each beneficial use. It is not sufficient, for example, to state that "waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses." This language for biostimulatory substances is useful, but must be accompanied by a specific numeric effluent limit for each beneficial use.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees that numeric values should be developed for water quality objectives. On the 2001 Triennial Review list, Surface Water Issues, items 4a-d, 5, 8, 9, and 10 are focused on the development of numeric values for nutrients, bacteria, turbidity, taste, and odor. These values will be linked to appropriate beneficial uses in the form of water quality objectives.
    
    The intent of the general objectives is to provide protection of beneficial uses where there is not a specific numeric target.

18. Comment:T he Board should establish protections and new areas for Areas of Special Biological Significance, Outstanding National Resource Waters, Outstanding State Resources Water and zones of zero discharge (for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution).
    
    Response: Board staff has added Task No. 11 to Clarify Chapter 5, page V-9, Section IV.C.1., Areas of Special Biological Significance. The Basin Plan will clarify that all discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance are prohibited. The Areas of Special Biological Significance section shall also include an explanation of the special circumstances permitting Carmel to discharge to an Area of Special Biological Significance.
    
    On the proposed 2001 Triennial Review list, there are no resources or staff budgeted for review and revision of new areas for Areas of Special Biological Significance, Outstanding National Resource Waters, Outstanding State Resources Water, and zones of zero discharge.

19. Comment:The Board should establish a prohibition on mixing zones for discharges to waterways identified on the 303(d) List ("impaired waterways").
    
    Response: There is a prohibition on mixing zones for discharges to inland surface waters. The Basin Plan allows a "mixing zone" for discharges under specific circumstances. For example, the Basin Plan states, "allowable zones of dilution within which higher (turbidity) concentrations will be tolerated will be defined for each discharge in discharge permits." No other types of mixing zones are allowed for inland surface waters. Board staff proposes to revise the turbidity objective December 2002.

20. Comment: The Board should establish, in the absence of a TMDL, a prohibition on the discharge of persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants to impaired waterways.
    
    Response: Chapter three of the Basin Plan contains numerous prohibitions for the discharge of persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants that impair or threaten to impair beneficial uses.

21. Comment: The Board should establish a prohibition on toxic discharges to drinking water sources pursuant to the restriction contained in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sections 25249.5 et seq.).
    
    Response: Chapter three of the Basin Plan contains numerous prohibitions for the discharge of toxic pollutants that impair or threaten to impair beneficial uses. Additionally, Chapter 4, Section VII, describes the Regional Board’s role and responsibility regarding Proposition 65.

22. Comment: The Board should establish water quality criteria for contaminated sediments.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees. On the 2001 Triennial Review List there is no proposed task to develop water quality criteria for contaminated sediments. However, Board staff will place this task on the list of issues requiring additional funding for future work to be completed.

23. Comment: The Board should establish Standard provisions for the 303(d) listing process and for TMDL implementation.
    
    Response: A description of the process and approach for 303(d) listing for the current update of the 303 (d) List of Impaired Waters may be viewed on our web page at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/. On the web page click on programs, TMDL, 2001 303 D List Staff Report. A statewide effort to develop guidelines for 303(d) listing is underway. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Board staff will provide input to this process.
    
    TMDL implementation will be done on a "case by case" basis relying on existing ordinances and authorities.

24. Comment: The Board should establish a process for re‑evaluation of all waivers issued under Water Code Section 13269.
    
    Response: A process for re‑evaluation of all waivers exists. In response to Senate Bill 390 (effective 10/10/99) the Regional Board has prepared a "baseline needs analysis" for waiver review. All waivers are to be reviewed by January 1, 2003 and every five years after 2003. A statewide effort is now underway to assist Regional Boards in complying with SB 390.

25. Comment: The Board should establish water quality criteria for fecal contamination, including for indicators such as total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococci, consistent with federal and state standards, including those established by the State Department of Health Services pursuant to AB 411.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees. On the 2001 Triennial Review List Task No. 5 and No. 9 shall result in the development of water quality standards for enterococcous and E. coli in surface/ocean waters. The new standards will be consistent with federal and state standards, including those established by the State Department of Health Services pursuant to AB 411.

26. Comment: The Board should establish standard provisions for Section 401 water quality certification.
    
    Response: The Board reviews all applications for Section 401 water quality certification in terms of protection of water quality and beneficial uses.All Section 401 water quality certifications must comply with the Basin Plan.

27. Comment:The Board should establish a process for re‑evaluating all general permits.
    
    Response: The Board has a process for re‑evaluating all orders issued under the "general permit." The general permit NPDES Orders are re-evaluated every five years. The general permit WDR Orders are re-evaluated every five, ten, or fifteen years depending on the discharge
    
    (NOTE: the Board is considering two general NPDES permits on this agenda).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

28. Comment: The following item is confusing: Staff Report, page 2, Basin Planning staff activities performed for the last three years, Develop Region-Wide Nonpoint Source Management Measures (Priority One, 1998 Triennial Review Priority List) states "No action has been taken on this item pending completion of the State ‘Nonpoint Source Program and Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013’" adopted January 2000.Staff intends to prepare a draft resolution for Regional Board consideration in June 2002.
    
    Since the State adopted the Plan January 2000 and the public hearing for the Triennial Review Priority List is scheduled for December 2001, it would appear appropriate to report on work completed to date rather than state no action has been taken.
    
    Response: The task being discussed was the Development of Region-Wide Nonpoint Source Management Measures, not the development of site-specific nonpoint source management measures across the region. The intent of the task discussed was to incorporate the State Nonpoint Source Program and Strategy and Implementation Plan, 1998-2013 by reference. This would create a "suite" of best management practices that could be applied region-wide.

29. Comment: Staff Report, page 2, Task 3, revised water quality objective needs to be added to this list
    
    Response: Board staff disagrees. The Task information listed on page 2 pertains to the 1998 Triennial Review Priority List.No new task will be added to the 1998 Triennial Review Priority List. The 2001 Triennial Review Priority List will take the place of this list if adopted by the Regional Board in December 2001.

30. Comment: Staff Report, page 2, Task 7, use consistent TMDL expression instead of spelling it out.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees

31. Comment: Staff Report, page 2, Tasks 7 and 8, "revisions to be completed 6/2001" needs to be updated.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees.

32. Comment: Staff Report, page 2-3, Tasks 14 and 15, Comments need to be revised with new due dates.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees for Task 14, the dates have been revised. There is no Task 15 on page 3 of the Staff Report.

33. Comment: Staff Report, Page 3, Item 3 – Other Activities, it would be useful to clarify that as of July 1, Basin Planning work was performed by the new TMDL Unit and that the CCAMP Regional Monitoring Program was established using Basin Planning funds. The picture is unclear for Basin Planning regarding the resources identified and work accomplished.
    
    Response: The staff report has been revised to state "TMDL work received dedicated funding July 1, 2000." Minimal Basin Plan funds were used to establish the CCAMP Regional Monitoring Program.

34. Comment: Is the amount of existing resources that will be used to complete Tasks 1, 2, 3a-d, 4a, 5, 6a-b, 7a-b, 8, 9, and 10 about 4 staff as reflected in Attachment A?
    
    Response: No, the staff requirements shown in Attachment A are estimates. We only have 3 staff budgeted for FY 01/02 – 03/04 (one PY for three years) to address Tasks1, 2, 3a-d, 4a, 5, 6a-b, 7a-b, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 listed in Attachment A.
    
    Once the Triennial Review Priority List is reviewed and adopted by the Regional Board, Board staff will prepare a work plan. The work plan shall detail the work to be completed and the associated staff budgeted to accomplish the work.

35. Comment: Since many of these tasks are dependent on other entities completing work, are there other tasks that can be completed that aren’t dependent on other entities?
    
    Response: Tasks 1, 2, 4a (status reports), 5, 6a-b, 7a-b, 8, 9, and 10 will be done independent of other entities.A portion of Task 3b may be done independently. Only Tasks 3a, c, d and 4a-d are dependent on other entities.

36. Comment: The Staff Report refers to 2.6 staff to complete the triennial review process and watershed assessment and needs 4.2 additional staff to accomplish Basin Plan priority tasks identified in Attachment A.
    
    Response: The Staff Report, page 3, Future Staff Resources, has been revised to clarify the relationship between the 2001 Triennial Review Priority List and funding information discussed.

37. Comment: Attachment B, comment 5, Many of the items on the list are "in progress" but are missing this designation. Please identify the items in progress.
    
    Response: Page 2 of the Staff report identifies 1998 Triennial Review Priority List priority tasks conducted using Basin Planning funding through July 1, 2000. The items left off the list were TMDL tasks conducted after July 1, 2000 and are being tracked by the TMDL unit. Please refer to Attachment E and www.waterboards.ca.gov, Programs, TMDL, Status of Total Maximum Daily Loads for additional information.

38. Comment: Attachment B, comments 6, 7, 8, and 10.
    
    Response: Attachment B is the 1998 Triennial Review Priority List. Board staff does not plan to create a revised 1998 Triennial Review Priority List. The 2001 Triennial Review Priority List will take the place of the 1998 Triennial Review Priority List if adopted by the Regional Board in December 2001.

39. Comment: Attachment B, comment 9, EPA requests the total chlorine residual objective task be given high priority.
    
    Response: Board staff agrees that a chlorine residual objective is important. However, funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address this task under the 2001 Triennial Review List.

40. Comment: Attachment B, comment 11, EPA requests the "evaluation of the need for Bacteria Objective for Ocean Waters Used for Desalination Water Supply/Consider Appropriateness of MUN designation" task be given high priority.
    
    Response: Board staff have proposed two specific tasks related to bacteria objectives 1) Incorporate an enterococcus standard for water contact recreation in ocean waters and 2) Incorporate an E. Coli standard for water contact recreation in surface waters. Funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address additional bacteria objectives under the 2001 Triennial Review List.

41. Comment: Attachment B, comment 12, Region Three standards have not been revised to reflect the EPA 1986 revised pathogen criteria recommendations for enterococcus
    
    Response: Board staff recognize this oversight and have proposed two specific tasks related to bacteria objectives 1) Incorporate an enterococcus standard for water contact recreation in ocean waters and 2) Incorporate an E. Coli standard for water contact recreation in surface waters. The objectives proposed for adoption shall comply with EPA 1986 revised pathogen criteria recommendations for enterococcus and E. Coli.

42. Comment: Attachment B, comment 13, Santa Margarita ground water basin in Monterey County is not shown in the Basin Plan.
    
    Response: Board staff recognizes that current ground water basins listed in the Basin Plan may be incomplete. Task 6 of the Ground Water section of the 2001 Triennial Review List proposes to update groundwater basin configurations. This includes identification of basins not presently included in the Basin Plan.

43. Comment: Attachment B, comment 14, MUN beneficial use designation default language in the Basin Plan should address reasons for non-designation of MUN for certain waters. Also note that exception to MUN designation is allowed for waters with elevated TDS or which are effluent dominated.
    
    Response: The MUN beneficial use designation default language in the Basin Plan does address reasons for non-designation of MUN (please see Chapter 2, page II-1, Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN) definition).

City of Santa Cruz, Department of Public Works, Water Department

44. Comment: We recommend the beneficial use designations for Loch Lomond reservoir be reviewed within the next 3 years.
    
    Response:Beneficial use designations for all waters in the Central Coast Region were reviewed in 1992 and revised beneficial use designations were incorporated into the September 8, 1994 update of the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Plan. Significant resources were utilized for this task under a one-time contract allocation. Current funding limitations will not allow for further review and revision of beneficial use designations during the 2001 Triennial Review Process.
    
    Although there is no task on the 2001 Triennial Review List for comprehensive review of beneficial use designations, if Santa Cruz County is aware of additional data that would allow for a revised designation for Loch Lomond reservoir, please provide this information to the Regional Board. Staff is willing to evaluate new data and recommend amendment of the Basin Plan as necessary within staffing constraints.

45. Comment: The City of Santa Cruz cannot unconditionally support Task 14, Proposed 2001 Triennial Review Priority List issues requiring additional funds, Develop Water Diversion Policy (to address water quality impacts).
    
    Response: Funding limitations will not allow Board staff to address issues on the "Proposed 2001 Triennial Review Priority List issues requiring additional funds." However, in the future when this issue is considered, Board staff shall solicit input from all interested parties.

Save Our Agriculture Land – Letter received, no formal comments.

Department of Pesticide Regulation – Letter received, no formal comments.

Recommendation

The Regional Board should adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment C) completing the 2001 Triennial Review process. The Resolution approves the Triennial Review priority list for potential revision of the Basin Plan, affirms the general adequacy of the present Basin Plan in areas not under revision, and states that the entire Basin Plan is effective until subsequent amendments are adopted.

Attachments

Attachment A – 2001 Triennial Review Priority List

Attachment B – 1998 Triennial Review Priority List

Attachment C – Resolution 01-121

Attachment D – August 24, 2001 letter soliciting public comments

Attachment E – Status of Total Maximum Daily Load Activities

[1] Each issue is evaluated for an estimate of staff time needed to complete the item (actual staff hours and total project-item duration). For those items requiring contract funding, estimated contract needs are identified following the description of each item.

[2] Basin Plan amendments can also occur for issues not identified during the Triennial Review. For example, amendments can occur for urgent issues resulting from new legislation or other sources.