http://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Nataliej&feedformat=atomCCoWS Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T15:32:02ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.2http://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-14T03:42:43Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. 2003 <ref name="Anderson et al. 2003"> [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf Anderson T, Watson F, Newman W, Hager J, Kozlowski D, Casagrande J, Larson J. 2003. Nutrients in surface waters of the southern Monterey Bay watersheds. Central Coast Watershed Studies]</ref> identified irrigated agriculture as the dominate source of nutrients in watersheds in the region. <br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf June 2010 California Regional Water Board Nutrient TMDL Progress Report] it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Regional Water Board Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
* A delineation of watershed boundaries <br />
* A list of subwatersheds<br />
* Stream classification, which revealed in general low gradient streams on the valley floor were perennial, and many headwater streams tended to be ephemeral.<br />
* An assessment of groundwater as baseflow. For the TMDL project area baseflow index values for groundwater ranged from 38 to 26 percent. <br />
* An assessment of mean groundwater nitrate concentrations for the project area. Values reported ranged from 0.1-10.0 mg/l to 100.1-200.0 mg/l of nitrate.<br />
* An assessment of mean annual precipitation for the project area. For the project area values ranged between 11.1 inches to 33.5 inches on average annually.<br />
* An analysis of land use and land cover. In the project area land uses include approximately 34% farmland, 31% grazing land, 8% urban, and 26% undeveloped/forested/restricted.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels, transparency and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it the TMDL is equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. <br />
<br />
Some reports employ conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. Some examples of reports that used conservative estimates include:<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report]<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report]<br />
*[http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report]<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: Lower Salinas River Watershed [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet]]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. <br />
<br />
Typically a TMDL report may go through one or more cycles where staff receive public comments and revise the report to reflect those comments appropriately. The figure to the left is an example of the iterative development process ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet]).<br />
<br />
Due to the large number of stakeholders that will be affected by the implementation of Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL, it is advisable to schedule at least 3 or more public hearings and collaborative stakeholder meetings during different stages of the process. <br />
<br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) so staff should be prepared to respond to any related questions or comments during public meetings.<br />
<br />
During the development of the Fecal Coliform TMDL report for the Lower Salinas River Watershed ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf 2010 Report]), Water Board staff conducted stakeholder outreach efforts throughout the process. Water Board staff made several presentations to engage stakeholders and results were presented in newspapers and television media. In addition, a CEQA stakeholder scoping meeting was held in June of 2007 and another stakeholder meeting was held in August of 2009. A formal Central Coast Water Board public hearing was also held and public comments were solicited prior to the hearing. <br />
<br />
Stakeholders included: <br />
*United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association<br />
*Monterey County Department of Environmental Health<br />
*State of California Department of Health Services<br />
*United States Department of Agriculture<br />
*United States Food and Drug Administration<br />
*Monterey County Cattlemen’s Association<br />
*The City of Salinas<br />
*Commercial Ranches<br />
*Commercial Farms<br />
*Monterey County Water Resources Agency<br />
*Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary<br />
*Monterey County Farm Bureau<br />
*Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office<br />
*Resource Conservation District of Monterey County<br />
*Central Coast Agricultural Task Force<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL]: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL ]:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL]: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Irrigated agriculture has been identified as the dominant source contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed. Therefore, the Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels. Urban stormwater runoff is often another source of nutrient levels in a watershed. Since the City of Salinas has already implemented a [http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/services/maintenance/pdf/SalinasSMP_QAPP.pdf Storm Water Monitoring Program] it would be advisable for water board staff to evaluate the results to ensure the Storm Water Management Program is effective at reducing nutrient effluent and has implemented Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),” which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the memorandum asks that regions assist states in developing implementation plans that include reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management processes. Although implementation plans are not approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf Laguna de Santa Rosa Nutrient TMDL]: the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL]: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
Irrigated agriculture has been identified as the dominant source contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed. Regulations can follow those set forth in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. It is also advisable for Water Board staff to incorporate educational outreach programs to encourage the adoption of Best Management Practices on all croplands.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
* [http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-13T00:10:12Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within the[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf June 2010 California Regional Water Board Nutrient TMDL Progress Report] it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Regional Water Board Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
* A delineation of watershed boundaries <br />
* A list of subwatersheds<br />
* Stream classification, which revealed in general low gradient streams on the valley floor were perennial, and many headwater streams tended to be ephemeral.<br />
* An assessment of groundwater as baseflow. For the TMDL project area baseflow index values for groundwater ranged from 38 to 26 percent. <br />
* An assessment of mean groundwater nitrate concentrations for the project area. Values reported ranged from 0.1-10.0 mg/l to 100.1-200.0 mg/l of nitrate.<br />
* An assessment of mean annual precipitation for the project area. For the project area values ranged between 11.1 inches to 33.5 inches on average annually.<br />
* An analysis of land use and land cover. In the project area land uses include approximately 34% farmland, 31% grazing land, 8% urban, and 26% undeveloped/forested/restricted.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels, transparency and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it the TMDL is equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. <br />
<br />
Some reports employ conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. Some examples of reports that used conservative estimates include:<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report]<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report]<br />
*[http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report]<br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
* [http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-13T00:07:38Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within the[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf June 2010 California Regional Water Board Nutrient TMDL Progress Report] it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Regional Water Board Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
* A delineation of watershed boundaries <br />
* A list of subwatersheds<br />
* Stream classification, which revealed in general low gradient streams on the valley floor were perennial, and many headwater streams tended to be ephemeral.<br />
* An assessment of groundwater as baseflow. For the TMDL project area baseflow index values for groundwater ranged from 38 to 26 percent. <br />
* An assessment of mean groundwater nitrate concentrations for the project area. Values reported ranged from 0.1-10.0 mg/l to 100.1-200.0 mg/l of nitrate.<br />
* An assessment of mean annual precipitation for the project area. For the project area values ranged between 11.1 inches to 33.5 inches on average annually.<br />
* An analysis of land use and land cover. In the project area land uses include approximately 34% farmland, 31% grazing land, 8% urban, and 26% undeveloped/forested/restricted.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels, transparency and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it the TMDL is equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. <br />
<br />
Some reports employ conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. Some examples of reports that used conservative estimates include:<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report]<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report]<br />
*[http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
* [http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:59:40Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within the[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf June 2010 California Regional Water Board Nutrient TMDL Progress Report] it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Regional Water Board Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
* A delineation of watershed boundaries <br />
* A list of subwatersheds<br />
* Stream classification, Which revealed in general low gradient streams on the valley floor were perennial, and many headwater streams tended to be ephemeral.<br />
* An assessment of groundwater as baseflow. For the TMDL project area baseflow index values for groundwater ranged from 38 to 26 percent. <br />
* An assessment of mean groundwater nitrate concentrations for the project area. Values reported ranged from 0.1-10.0 mg/l to 100.1-200.0 mg/l of nitrate.<br />
* An assessment of mean annual precipitation for the project area. For the project area values ranged between 11.1 inches to 33.5 inches on average annually.<br />
* An analysis of land use and land cover. In the project area land uses include approximately 34% farmland, 31% grazing land, 8% urban, and 26% undeveloped/forested/restricted.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels, transparency and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it the TMDL is equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
* [http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:50:30Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within the[http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf June 2010 California Regional Water Board Nutrient TMDL Progress Report] it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Regional Water Board Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
* A delineation of watershed boundaries <br />
* A list of subwatersheds<br />
* Stream classification. In general low gradient streams on the valley floor were perennial, and many headwater streams tended to be ephemeral.<br />
* An assessment of groundwater as baseflow. Baseflow index values ranged from 38 to 26 percent. <br />
* An assessment of mean groundwater nitrate concentrations for the project area. Values ranged from 0.1-10.0 mg/l to 100.1-200.0 mg/l of nitrate.<br />
* An assessment of mean annual precipitation for the project area. Values ranged between 11.1 inches to 33.5 inches on average annually.<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it the TMDL is equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:44:51Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The nutrient TMDL for the Lower Salinas River watershed is still being developed. The CCRWQCB [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] summarized the process to date and established preliminary and provisional numeric targets to be included in the TMDL (see Numeric Targets above).<br />
<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:41:10Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. During TMDL development, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
The margin of safety for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is still being developed. A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:38:08Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:37:06Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf San Louis Obispo Creek TMDL Report] used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report Malibu Creek watershed TMDL report] also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:35:35Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
TMDLs establish the concentration or daily load of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support its' defined [[beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations, it is necessary to consider secondary indicators, such as dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass, that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column and predict levels of nutrients that would impair specific beneficial uses. Some approaches to nutrient TMDL development can be found in the following reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek TMDL Report] and [http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report] are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:34:35Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Creek TMDL report]) are examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:32:27Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek TMDL report], Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:31:10Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report Pajaro River and Llagas Creek], Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:28:17Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
*The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:27:56Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or can be set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL according to different seasons. They allow 13 lbs/day of inorganic nitrogen for reach 2, 224lb/day from October 1 to March 31 total nitrogen and 175lb/day from April 1 to September 30<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
[[Image:TMDLGraphic.png | thumb | 200px | Image taken from California Regional Water Quality Control Board Development of total maximum daily loads for nutrients and nutrient-related impairments: lower salinas river watershed Factsheet ]]<br />
<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
The Public Participation ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T23:17:09Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Specifically for the lower Salinas Watershed Anderson et al. identified ....<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. The water quality objective for nitrogen for the beneficial use MUN (defined above) is 10 mg/L. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Report] set the nitrate TMDL as 5 mg/L for reach 2.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
In establishing TMDL allocations in the Lower Salinas River Watershed for nutrients, the Regional Water Quality Control Board could approach the allocations in a similar fashion as that taken in the Pajaro River Nitrate TMDL. By setting the load allocations as a concentration at or below the numeric target for all sources, future growth and changes in land use will not lead to an exceedance of the TMDL. This will also eliminate the need for setting critical conditions based on changes in flow rate, which would absolutely be required if allocations were set as loads given in mass.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
A ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/salinasnut_tmdl_factsheet.pdf Factsheet])<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:52:26Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
Data analysis for the June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report included:<br />
<br />
*Watershed boundaries were delineated and a list of subwatershed within the TMDL project area was composed. Environmental factors such as soils, hydrology and precipitation were assessed as they play a role in nutrient transport and loading in waterways.<br />
<br />
*Sources of nutrients within the watershed for the TMDL is pending. The June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report compiles information that may be relevant to potential source categories. Such sources may include animal agriculture, agricultural cropland, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. <br />
<br />
*Sources of water quality data for the TMDL project area were identified and compiled. This data included nutrient levels, pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.<br />
<br />
*For the proposed TMDL project area land use and land cover were identified.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports approaches to TMDL concentrations:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The 2003 [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] included critical conditions. Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek] sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL] gives allocation to water reclamation plants, publicly owned treatment works, and non point sources based on daily mass. Individual allocations for non-point sources are not specified.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T22:46:17Z<p>Nataliej: /* Changes in the March 2011 Ag Waiver Draft */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated'''], a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The [[beneficial uses]] include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
In addition, the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Ag waiver] introduced a effort-based tiered system for dischargers:<br />
* Tier 1: Dischargers would have to complete 15 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education; complete a Farm Plan by the enrollment deadline; provide biennial implementation checlists to the Regional Board; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
* Tier 2: Dischargers would have to complete at least 5 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education per year; complete a Farm Plan within three years of the enrollment deadline; provide annual practice implementation checklists identifying implemented and planned practices and progress reports; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Program http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf</ref>. By September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Agricultural Order]. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2010_0040_ag_order.pdf (Order No. R3-2010-0040)]. The most recent draft Ag Waiver, [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/12_09_2010_staffrpt/AgOrder_AppA.pdf (Order No. R3-2011-0006)], renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
*Enroll by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) <br />
*Implement management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed <br />
*Completion and implementation of a Farm Plan including: <br />
** Irrigation management<br />
** Pesticide management<br />
** Nutrient management<br />
** Sediment and erosion control management<br />
** Aquatic habitat protection<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
*Protect existing aquatic habitat from the impacts of discharger's waste<br />
* Tier 2 and 3 farmers have additional regulatory requirements.<br />
<br />
== Changes in the March 2011 Ag Waiver Draft ==<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI based on guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board''' [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ (RWQCB)]<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations [http://baykeeper.org/ San Francisco Bay Keeper] and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref>. Other organizations include: [http://www.otterproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=8pIKIYMIG&b=4136551 Monterey Bay Coast Keeper], [http://www.surfrider.org/ Surfrider Foundation], [http://www.cnps.org/ California Native Plant Society], etc.<br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB"><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T22:45:15Z<p>Nataliej: /* 2000's */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated'''], a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The [[beneficial uses]] include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
In addition, the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Ag waiver] introduced a effort-based tiered system for dischargers:<br />
* Tier 1: Dischargers would have to complete 15 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education; complete a Farm Plan by the enrollment deadline; provide biennial implementation checlists to the Regional Board; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
* Tier 2: Dischargers would have to complete at least 5 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education per year; complete a Farm Plan within three years of the enrollment deadline; provide annual practice implementation checklists identifying implemented and planned practices and progress reports; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Program http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf</ref>. By September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Agricultural Order]. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2010_0040_ag_order.pdf (Order No. R3-2010-0040)]. The most recent draft Ag Waiver, [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/12_09_2010_staffrpt/AgOrder_AppA.pdf (Order No. R3-2011-0006)], renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
*Enroll by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) <br />
*Implement management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed <br />
*Completion and implementation of a Farm Plan including: <br />
** Irrigation management<br />
** Pesticide management<br />
** Nutrient management<br />
** Sediment and erosion control management<br />
** Aquatic habitat protection<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
*Protect existing aquatic habitat from the impacts of discharger's waste<br />
* Tier 2 and 3 farmers have additional regulatory requirements.<br />
<br />
== Changes in the March 2011 Ag Waiver Draft ==<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board''' [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ (RWQCB)]<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations [http://baykeeper.org/ San Francisco Bay Keeper] and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref>. Other organizations include: [http://www.otterproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=8pIKIYMIG&b=4136551 Monterey Bay Coast Keeper], [http://www.surfrider.org/ Surfrider Foundation], [http://www.cnps.org/ California Native Plant Society], etc.<br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB"><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T22:44:03Z<p>Nataliej: /* 2000's */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated'''], a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The [[beneficial uses]] include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
In addition, the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Ag waiver] introduced a effort-based tiered system for dischargers:<br />
* Tier 1: Dischargers would have to complete 15 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education; complete a Farm Plan by the enrollment deadline; provide biennial implementation checlists to the Regional Board; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
* Tier 2: Dischargers would have to complete at least 5 hours of Regional Board-approved water quality education per year; complete a Farm Plan within three years of the enrollment deadline; provide annual practice implementation checklists identifying implemented and planned practices and progress reports; and perform individual or cooperative water quality monitoring.<br />
<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program Program http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf</ref>. By September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2004/2004_0117_wdr_conditional_ag_waiver.pdf 2004 Agricultural Order]. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2010_0040_ag_order.pdf (Order No. R3-2010-0040)]. The most recent draft Ag Waiver, [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/12_09_2010_staffrpt/AgOrder_AppA.pdf (Order No. R3-2011-0006)], renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
*Enroll by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) <br />
*Implement management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed <br />
*Completion and implementation of a Farm Plan including: <br />
** Irrigation management<br />
** Pesticide management<br />
** Nutrient management<br />
** Sediment and erosion control management<br />
** Aquatic habitat protection<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
*Protect existing aquatic habitat from the impacts of discharger's waste<br />
* Tier 2 and 3 farmers have additional regulatory requirements.<br />
<br />
== Changes in the March 2011 Ag Waiver Draft ==<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board''' [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ (RWQCB)]<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations [http://baykeeper.org/ San Francisco Bay Keeper] and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref>. Other organizations include: [http://www.otterproject.org/site/pp.asp?c=8pIKIYMIG&b=4136551 Monterey Bay Coast Keeper], [http://www.surfrider.org/ Surfrider Foundation], [http://www.cnps.org/ California Native Plant Society], etc.<br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB"><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:38:22Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses. The report does not include seasonality because it is set to be equal to the water quality objectives of the region.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:35:45Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:34:49Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] sets the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:34:29Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Creek Nutrient TMDL report] set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] set the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:33:46Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf] Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations <br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] set the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set TMDL allocations:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:30:56Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs are more commonly defined in terms of a mass load, but occasionally are set as a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports:<br />
<br />
*Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Nutrient TMDL Report])<br />
<br />
*The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro River and Llagas Creek report] set the maximum concentration for nitrate within the water body at 10mg/L in order to protect beneficial uses.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set allocations for nutrients:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that are either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
* The [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/f/f4/2002_-_TMDL_for_Nutrients_San_Diego_Creek_and_Newport_Bay.pdf TMDL for Nutrients in San Diego Creek and Newport Bay] used by the EPA as an example for a nutrient TMDL sets allocations based on mass, but sets two different allocations for each source based on high and low water flow conditions.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to monitoring found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag waiver]]. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]]. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]] and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples of approaches to implementation found in similar Regional TMDL reports'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the [[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands | Ag Waiver]].<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:17:52Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/ Basin Plan] are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. TMDLs can be defined in terms of a mass load or a unit of concentration. Defining a unit of concentration may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports that have used Tmdle in terms of concentration.<br />
<br />
*Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Nutrient TMDL Report])<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. TMDLs in other parts of California provide examples of different approaches used to set allocations for nutrients:<br />
* The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
* The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/lower_fecal/sal_fc_tmdl_att2_projrpt.pdf Lower Salinas River Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL Final Report] sets allocations based on concentrations that either equal to the TMDL or zero.<br />
*<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:15:14Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that summarized the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL represents the concentrations of nutrients a body of water can contain, while continuing to support the [[Beneficial uses]]. Previous TMDLs have been defined in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports that have used Tmdle in terms of concentration.<br />
<br />
*Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Nutrient TMDL Report])<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf July 2000 EPA Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:10:52Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that reviewed the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports that have used Tmdle in terms of concentration.<br />
<br />
*Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Nutrient TMDL Report])<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T22:10:31Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed (Map by Gabriela Alberola 2011)]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data for water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010, the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its' 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems. Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic supply (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that reviewed the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_NutrientSources_030529b_ta.pdf preliminary source analysis] prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass. It would be useful to reference other reports that have used Tmdle in terms of concentration.<br />
<br />
*Chorro Creek set a sodium concentration limit of 50 mg/L and total dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L in order to help achieve the water quality objective for nutrient concentations ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro TMDL Report])<br />
<br />
*<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The Nitrate TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek sets all nitrate allocations (including background levels) at the numeric target of 10mg/L<ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report > </ref>.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed mainly needs to quantify agricultural nutrient sources. Monitoring can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:58:08Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] that reviewed the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Source Analysis==<br />
The source analysis for nutrients in the Lower Salinas River watershed has not been completed at this time. There is a preliminary source analysis prepared by Anderson, et al. in 2003 that identified irrigated agriculture as a dominant source of high nutrient concentrations in southern Monterey Bay watersheds.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column. Some secondary indicators include dissolved oxygen levels and algal biomass.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The Nutrient TMDL in development for the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara River Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:48:05Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
[[Beneficial uses]] of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a summary report that reviewed the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The summary report described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the summary report range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body. A modelling tool can be used to link secondary indicators to concentrations in the water column.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek Nutrient TMDL <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river Nutrient TMDL<ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Loads for Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon in Lower Salinas River Watershed in Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:44:34Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a summary report that reviewed the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The summary report described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the summary report range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
In a TMDL document, the linkage analysis is intended to link the numeric target concentration (amount per volume) to a daily load (amount per day) for the watershed. No explicit linkage analysis was given in the summary report because the numeric target concentration is not finalized. Once a target has been established, the linkage analysis will be used to convert that target concentration to daily load.<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed. In order to develop the TMDL in terms of concentrations it is necessary to consider secondary indicators that are linked to the [[Beneficial uses]] for the water body.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
The development of this TMDL will affect many stakeholders regulated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents that demonstrate any potential impacts on these stakeholders should be prepared ahead of time to present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:38:52Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Lower Salinas River Watershed.png|400px|thumb|Map Of The Lower Salinas River Watershed]]<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California | TMDL]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets are concentrations of specified nutrients that would not impair designated beneficial uses of a given water body. Water quality objectives given in the Basin Plan are attempts to quantify the allowable nutrient concentrations. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption. Currently, the numeric targets for nitrogen in the Lower Salinas River watershed are being developed. CCRWQCB staff prepared a summary report that discusses the development of provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen.<br />
<br />
The summary report described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. Based on these approaches, the provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the summary report range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type. That range is consistent with established nutrient TMDLs on Malibu Creek and Rainbow Creek in Southern California.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed.<br />
* in order to develop this you have to look at secondary issues<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause an increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) the effects of the first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater effects.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:31:23Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone. This conclusion is based in part on the Tetratech Final California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints (NNE) Report 2006 ([http://rd.tetratech.com/epa/Documents/CA_NNE_July_Final.pdf pdf]).<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets for nutrients are defined as water quality objectives in the Basin Plan based on the designated beneficial uses of a given water body. The objectives listed in the Basin Plan are used as a starting point during TMDL development and adoption.<br />
<br />
The summary report prepared by CCRWQCB staff described that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report explored a variety of ways to define a range of numeric targets. Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates the numeric target by using either the 25th percentile of nutrient data from reference streams or the 75th percentile of all nutrient data for the project area streams. The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions. The provisional and preliminary numeric targets for total nitrogen listed in the summary report range from 1.4-2.2 mg/L depending on waterbody type.<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
Previous TMDLs have been defined it in terms on concentration and that may be a useful approach for the Lower Salinas River Watershed.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>. Specifically, critical condition were evaluated on the basis of those conditions that would cause and increase in inorganic nitrogen species due to either 1) low flow conditions, 2) effects of first big storm of the season (first flush), or 3) rising groundwater<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations are typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has summarized procedures to develop numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions (see above) in impaired water bodies, but did not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek <ref name= Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf ]</ref>: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report >[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> , “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
The purpose of an Implementation Plan is to describe the steps necessary to reduce pollutant loads to achieve these TMDLs. Implementation Plans identify the following: 1) actions expected to reduce pollutant loading; 2) parties responsible for taking these actions; 3) regulatory mechanisms by which the Central Coast Water Board will assure these actions are taken; 4) reporting and evaluation requirements that will indicate progress toward completing the actions; 5) a timeline for completion of implementation actions. Implementation Plans also address economic considerations to achieve compliance. Several approaches to specifying a monitoring plan have been adopted in federally approved TMDLS in the Monterey Bay area<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> : the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek <ref name= SLO Creek 2005 Report>[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf ]</ref>: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River <ref name= Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL>[http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf ]</ref>: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:14:47Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets for nutrients are defined as water quality objectives in the Basin Plan based on the designated beneficial uses of a given water body. The targets listed in the Basin Plan are provisional and will be finalized during TMDL development and adoption.<br />
<br />
Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates…… The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions.<br />
<br />
The summary report prepared by CCRWQCB staff describes that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report compiled<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] did not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies.<br />
<br />
Previous [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] have not included critical conditions, however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach, the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]): Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]):The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa ([http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf TMDL examples]): the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]): the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T21:12:34Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
Within June 2010 California Water Board Data Collection, Analysis and Nutrient Criteria Development- Progress Report ([http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf pdf]) it is acknowledged that the presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets for nutrients are defined as water quality objectives in the Basin Plan based on the designated beneficial uses of a given water body. The targets listed in the Basin Plan are provisional and will be finalized during TMDL development and adoption.<br />
<br />
Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates…… The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions.<br />
<br />
The summary report prepared by CCRWQCB staff describes that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report compiled<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of [http://www.ccamp.org/ CCAMP] reference sites. These sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
In order to develop a proper margin of safety it is useful to reference other TMDL reports. The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public.<br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]): Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]):The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed will be dependent on the identification of sources, but can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa ([http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf TMDL examples]): the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]): the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
To develop the implementation plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed sources will need to be identified in order to place appropriate effluent limiting permits and/or prohibitions. It will likely be necessary to control effluent from the City of Salinas' waste wastewater treatment facility, stormwater discharge, croplands, and lands containing livestock.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:57:22Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets for nutrients are defined as water quality objectives in the Basin Plan based on the designated beneficial uses of a given water body. The targets listed in the Basin Plan are provisional and will be finalized during TMDL development and adoption.<br />
<br />
Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates…… The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions.<br />
<br />
The summary report prepared by CCRWQCB staff describes that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report compiled<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of [http://www.ccamp.org/ CCAMP] reference sites. These sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety and implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]): Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]):The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa ([http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf TMDL examples]): the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]): the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:56:15Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient-related impairments in the Lower Salinas River watershed water bodies listed under the [[Clean Water Act | 303(d) section of the Clean Water Act]]. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs)Associated with Waterways Listed for Nutrient Impairments '''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
<br />
Numeric targets for nutrients are defined as water quality objectives in the Basin Plan based on the designated beneficial uses of a given water body. The targets listed in the Basin Plan are provisional and will be finalized during TMDL development and adoption.<br />
<br />
Final nutrient targets can be developed based on either calculations or estimations. The percentile based approach calculates…… The nutrient numeric endpoints (NNE) approach estimates in-stream benthic algal response to ambient stream conditions.<br />
<br />
The summary report prepared by CCRWQCB staff describes that one uniform nutrient target may not be sufficient in light of the large variability of stream morphology and hydraulics in the waterbodies contributing to the Lower Salinas River. The report compiled<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of [http://www.ccamp.org/ CCAMP] reference sites. These sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety, but also implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The Environmental Protection Agency Nutrient TMDL development protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]): Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]):The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
The Monitoring plan for the Lower Salinas River Watershed can likely follow the requirements outlined in the Conditional Waiver and then staff can evaluate the results to ensure that agricultural best practices are adequate to reduce nutrient levels.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa ([http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf TMDL examples]): the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report]): the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]): Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:41:23Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient related impairments in the [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act 303(d)] listed water bodies of the Lower Salinas River watershed. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) of Listed Waterways'''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of [http://www.ccamp.org/ CCAMP] reference sites. These sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative e estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety, but also implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The EPA protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, EPA’s Bob Perciasepe issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa: the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:40:53Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient related impairments in the [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act 303(d)] listed water bodies of the Lower Salinas River watershed. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment (Proposed)<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) of Listed Waterways'''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
In July 2000 the EPA released a Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual for Rivers and Streams ([http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/guidance/rivers/rivers-streams-full.pdf pdf]) to provide guidance on developing nutrient criteria.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of [http://www.ccamp.org/ CCAMP] reference sites. These reference sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative e estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety, but also implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The EPA protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
*Santa Clara river: dry and wet weather discharges will be monitored from agricultural, urban and open space sources to determine if best management practices are effective at reducing nutrient loading, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) monitoring is outlined in Plans submitted by permitees in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, EPA’s Bob Perciasepe issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa: the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:32:18Z<p>Nataliej: /* Margin of Safety */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDLs_in_the_Monterey_Bay_Region_of_California Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient related impairments in the [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act 303(d)] listed water bodies of the Lower Salinas River watershed. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) of Listed Waterways'''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of CCAMP reference sites. These reference sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative e estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety, but also implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The EPA protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, EPA’s Bob Perciasepe issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa: the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDL_for_Nutrients_in_Lower_Salinas_River_Watershed,_Monterey_County,_CaliforniaTMDL for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California2011-04-12T20:31:48Z<p>Nataliej: /* TMDL Development */</p>
<hr />
<div>This summary page is based on the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/ Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region] [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] on Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients and other TMDL projects for the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]], in Monterey County, California. This summary was prepared by the Spring 2011 [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB].<br />
<br />
== Project Definition ==<br />
<br />
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (CCRWQCB) is currently developing a [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/TMDLs_in_the_Monterey_Bay_Region_of_California Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)] project for nutrients in the [[Lower Salinas River Watershed]] in Monterey County. The CCRWQCB presented a [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report] in June 2010 that contains background information, provisional nutrient targets, and a compilation of water quality data of water bodies in the region. Although the progress report identifies potential sources of nutrient loads, the source analysis portion of the TMDL project is still pending. <br />
<br />
This TMDL project will address the nutrient related impairments in the [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act 303(d)] listed water bodies of the Lower Salinas River watershed. The 2006 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies is the current and active list for the California Central Coast. In 2010 the CCRWQCB presented an updated list in its 2010 Integrated Report, but this report is still waiting for approval by the USEPA. The following table contains the water bodies and the nutrient-related reason for their listing in both the 2006 active list and in the 2010 list: <br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Water Body<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2006 Listed Impairment<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2010 Listed Impairment<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Creek<br />
| Nutrient<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Alisal Slough <br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Blanco Drain<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Chualar Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Esperanza Creek<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Espinosa Slough<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Gabilan Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Merrit Ditch<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Moro Cojo Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized),Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Natividad Creek<br />
| Nitrate<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River<br />
| Not Listed<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Old Salinas River Estuary<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Quail Creek<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas Reclamation Canal<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River (lower, estuary to near Gonzales Rd <br />
<br />
Crossing)<br />
| Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
| Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Salinas River Lagoon (North)<br />
| Nutrients<br />
| Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
| Santa Rita Creek <br />
| Nitrate <br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrate<br />
|-<br />
| Tembladero Slough<br />
| Ammonia (Unionized), Nutrients<br />
| Chlorophyll-a, Nitrate, Nutrients<br />
|-<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Problem Statement==<br />
<br />
Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally limiting nutrients in many ecosystems.Eutrophication of waterways occurs when excess nurtients are present. Water quality issues associated with eutrophication include: increased algal biomass (including potentially toxic species), increased turbidity, alterations in dissolved oxygen concentrations, decreased biodiversity, and decreased aesthetic value of the waterway due to foul smells and change in color. Severe eutrophication can create anoxic areas also known as dead zones. <br />
Sources contributing to the issue of nutrients in the Lower Salinas Watershed have not yet been identified. In general, sources of nutrients in watersheds include: urban runoff, the application of fertilizers, groundwater, livestock, wastewater treatment plants, and septic systems. Reporting high levels of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus alone is not enough to predict the impairment of a waterway, secondary indicators of impairment due to excess nutrients must also be evaluated to determine eutrophication.<br />
Beneficial uses of waterways and water quality objectives are considered when determining water quality standards.<br />
<br />
'''Beneficial Uses (BUs) of Listed Waterways'''<br />
* Municipal and Domestic suppy (MUN)<br />
* Agriculture (AGR)<br />
* Industrial Process (PRO)<br />
* Industrial Service (IND)<br />
* Ground Water Recharge (GWR)<br />
* Water Contact Recreation (REC1)<br />
* Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC2)<br />
* Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD)<br />
* Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM)<br />
* Estuarine Habitat (EST)<br />
* Wildlife Habitat (WILD)<br />
* Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE)<br />
* Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR)<br />
* Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN)<br />
* Biological Habitats of Special Significance (BIOL)<br />
* Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL)<br />
* Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM)<br />
* Freshwater replenishment (FRESH)<br />
<br />
{| border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Waterbody<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MUN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | AGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | PRO<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | IND<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | GWR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC1<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | REC2<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WILD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COLD<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | WARM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | MIGR<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SPWN<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | BIOL<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | RARE<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | EST<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | FRESH<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | COMM<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | SHELL<br />
|-<br />
|'''Old Salinas River Estuary'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River Lagoon (North)'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tembladero Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|-<br />
|'''Espinosa Slough'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas Reclamation Canal'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Alisal Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Blanco Drain'''<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River, down stream of Spreckels Gage'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Salinas River,Chualar to Spreckles'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|-<br />
|'''Quail Creek'''<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|style="text-align: center;"|X<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|}<br />
A more complete table of beneficial uses will be available in the final project report.<br />
<br />
==Data Analysis==<br />
<br />
The presence of excess nutrients does not directly impair waterways, rather it is the indirect impacts associated with the presence of excess nutrients that diminish beneficial uses of waterways. Secondary indicators of eutrophication such as nuisance algal blooms, drastic diel swings in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and loss of habitat must also be monitored and documented as they are more directly linked to the beneficial uses of waterways than nutrient concentrations alone.<br />
<br />
==Numeric Target==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
==Linkage Analysis==<br />
Kathy<br />
<br />
== TMDL Development ==<br />
The TMDL target for nutrients for the lower Salinas valley is identified as a numeric target. The target concentrations vary based on the locations of the water bodies within the Salinas Valley. These preliminary target concentrations are based on the 95th percentile of CCAMP reference sites. These reference sites might not be representative of "valley floor streams, sloughs and water conveyance structures"([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]), which are more commonly found in the Salinas Valley. <br />
<br />
The target allowable concentrations are established for phosphorus and nitrogen. The allowable numeric targets were calculated using the NNE (nutrient numeric endpoints) benthic biomass predictor tool. This tool predicts biological responses based on nutrient conditions present in the water body. The numeric targets for nutrient concentration are temperature dependent. The classifications for water temperature are either warm or cold. Parameters that are included in the predictor tool include nutrients (natural and anthropogenic), canopy closure, water temperature, latitude, flow velocity and depth.<br />
<br />
==Margin of Safety==<br />
<br />
A margin of safety is used to account for the uncertainty in the linkage between nutrient loads and nutrient pollutant concentrations in the receiving water body. There are two methods to approach the margin of safety in a TMDL report. One can either incorporate the uncertainties implicitely by making conservative estimates into the model or quantify a portion of the total TMDL, leaving the remainder as sources (allocations are important in this circumstance). It is important to not only make conservative assumptions about the parameters, but the thresholds as well. Uncertainties that would be useful to take into consideration in regards to the lower Salinas valley include:<br />
* there is a finite amount of data available<br />
* concentrations are discrete values that have been estimated based on a specific amount of parameters and do not necessarily account for the interactions of the parameters<br />
* the model may not be representative of the actual environmental conditions<br />
* rain patterns vary from one year to the next so dilutions vary<br />
* what form nutrients become bioavailable to macrophytes<br />
<br />
The Pajaro River and Llagas Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0131_paj_nitrate_tmdl_attach_b_final_project_report.pdf Pajaro Llagas 2005 Report]), Chorro Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2006/2006_0044_tmdl_project_report.pdf Chorro Report 2006])and San Diego Creek TMDL ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/SanDiegoNewportSedimentNutrientsTMDLs.pdf San Diego Report]) reports are all examples of nutrient TMDL reports that employed conservative estimates within their water quality objectives, thus implicitly accounting for the margin of safety. An important factor to consider when using conservative e estimates in lieu of quantitaive margins is to explicitly address the individual assumptions that are being accounted for. An efficient way to make conservative assumptions on a in an efficient way is to assume low flow conditions. <br />
<br />
San Louis Obispo Creek ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2005/2005_0106_slo_nut_tmdl_attach_b_proj_report.pdf SLO Creek 2005 Report])used the quantitative approach and estimated the margin of safety to be about 20% of the total nitrate-N mass load based on a number of uncertainties and limitations in their data. Malibu Creek watershed ([http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/malibu/final_nutrients.pdf Malibu Report]) also estimated a 20% margin of safety, but also implicitly included conservative assumptions into the TMDL analysis. However, it is important to note that this TMDL report has not yet been approved on the state or federal level.<br />
<br />
The margin of safety that one might want to consider for the Lower Salinas River Watershed is dependent on the assumptions made in the INN benthic biomass modeler. If all of the sources of varibility have been accounted for in the model by incorporating conservative assumptions then that may be stated as the margin of safety. However, if there are any uncertainties that have not been incorporated in the model, then an explicit margin of safety should be identified. The typical margin of safety that has been accepted in California lies around 20 percent, but this can vary depending on land uses and other variables affecting nutrient loading into water bodies.<br />
<br />
==Critical Conditions and Seasonal Variation==<br />
The TMDL progress report has not addressed the “critical” environmental factor for nutrient loading in the Lower Salinas River Watershed, in which a slight change could lead to exceeding the water quality objectives. However, the progress report does specify some indicators that can impair the beneficial uses of the regional water bodies ([http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf progress report]).<br />
<br />
Previous TMDLs in the Lower Salinas River Watershed have not included critical conditions ([[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]), however critical conditions for a Nutrient TMDL may be advisable due to the high occurrence of nutrient loading for agriculture in the Salinas Valley. The TMDL approved for the Santa Clara River in 2003 included critical conditions ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]). Although the climate around the Santa Clara River is drier, that water body is similar to the Lower Salinas River in seasonal flow and the effects of the first big storm (first flush). Although not a perfect approach (Keller et al. 2004), the Santa Clara River TMDL makes an attempt to incorporate the increased impairment hazard presented by seasonal variation <ref> Keller AA, Zheng Y, Robinson TH. 2004. Determining critical water quality conditions for inorganic nitrogen in dry, semi-urbanized watersheds. JAWRA 40(3): 721-735. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04455.x/abstract </ref>.<br />
<br />
==TMDL Allocations==<br />
TMDLs include the total concentration of nutrients allowed to be discharged into a water body by all possible sources. The allocations is typically comprised of Load Allocations (LAs) from nonpoint sources and Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) from point sources and also includes a Margin of Safety (MOS) to account for unexpected sources of a particular contaminant and Future Growth (FG):<br />
<br />
TMDL = LAs + WLAs + MOS + FG<br />
<br />
<br />
The Lower Salinas River Watershed Nutrient TMDL [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/salinas/nutrients/sal_nut_dataanalyrpt_061410.pdf Progress Report] has established numeric targets for nutrient loading reductions in impaired water bodies, but has not provided recommended LAs. The allocation decision process undertaken in the Santa Clara River ([http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/images/4/46/2003_-_Santa_Clara_River_Nitrogen_TMDL.pdf Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL]) provides a scope for the considerations that should be taken in the Lower Salinas River Watershed. Specifically, the interaction between different nutrient species must be well understood and modeled if the allocations are to be effective. It is also important to revise and finalize the "[[Conditional waiver of waste discharge requirements for irrigated lands]]" or "Ag Waiver" process before allocations are assigned.<br />
<br />
==Public Participation==<br />
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to a TMDL’s success. The August 23, 1999, proposed regulation states that the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment on a TMDL prior to its submission to the EPA for review and approval. In addition, with a TMDL submittal, the EPA must be provided with a summary of all public comments received regarding the TMDL and staff response to those comments, indicating how the comments were considered in the final decision. During the completion of past TMDLs the Central Coast Water Board presented TMDL project reports during different stages of the analysis process and to present preliminary findings of the report. <br />
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) issues will likely need to be addressed as well. It is most effective to prepare documents ahead of time to demonstrate any potential impacts and present alternative schemes and implementation strategies to the public. <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref><br />
<br />
==Implementation and Monitoring==<br />
<br />
===Monitoring===<br />
The EPA protocol document <ref name= "EPA doc" >[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/nutrient/pdf/nutrient.pdf]</ref> suggested steps: identify key questions, evaluate monitoring options and implement the monitoring program. It is suggested that monitoring plans describe the timing, location, responsible parties, and quality assurance and control procedures. The level of rigor required for a monitoring plan is dependent on the confidence in the TMDL analysis. A greater level of uncertainty requires more rigorous monitoring actions and must allow more room for future revision. Since watershed process drivers are not identical before and after implementation, models are useful for evaluating results of monitoring. Models can be calibrated to pre or post implementation to better compare results of monitoring actions. Coordination with other existing or planned monitoring activities can be particularly helpful for long-term monitoring programs, large study areas, or if the water quality agency’s monitoring resources are limited. It is also important to choose the type of monitoring that will be most appropriate to yield desired goals and then develop a quality assurance plan to ensure the data can support future analysis. Overall a monitoring plan is created to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation strategies and TMDL elements such as numeric targets and pollutant estimates. <br />
<br />
Examples of key questions: Are the selected indicators capable of detecting designated use impacts of concern and responses to control actions? Have baseline or background conditions been adequately characterized? Are the numeric targets set at levels that reasonably represent the appropriate desired conditions for designated uses of concern? Have all important pollutant sources been identified? Have pollutant sources been accurately estimated?<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
*Pajaro/Llagas Creek: Follow-up monitoring data on Nitrate will be provided by the Monitoring and Reporting Program in the the conditional waivers. Water Board staff will review data every three years. Additional monitoring will assess causes of excessive algae and low dissolved oxygen conditions that lead to impairment of water bodies.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek:The City of San Luis Obispo required to monitor effluent from the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF)in accordance with the NPDES permit. Cropland monitoring is consistent with the Conditional Waiver. Regional Water Board Staff will review the results every three years.<br />
<br />
===Implementation===<br />
On August 8, 1997, EPA’s Bob Perciasepe issued a<br />
memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and<br />
Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs),”<br />
which directs EPA regions to work in partnership with<br />
states to achieve nonpoint source load allocations<br />
established for 303(d)-listed waters impaired solely or<br />
primarily by nonpoint sources. To this end, the<br />
memorandum asks that regions assist states in<br />
developing implementation plans that include<br />
reasonable assurances that the nonpoint source load<br />
allocations established in TMDLs for waters impaired<br />
solely or primarily by nonpoint sources will in fact be<br />
achieved; a public participation process; and<br />
recognition of other relevant watershed management<br />
processes. Although implementation plans are not<br />
approved by EPA, they help establish the basis for<br />
EPA’s approval of TMDLs.<br />
<br />
'''Examples'''<br />
<br />
*Laguna de Santa Rosa: the Waste Reduction Strategy includes: a grant program aimed at reducing waste inputs from confined animal operations, a stormwater runoff program, an NPDES permit program,and voluntary actions organized by the Laguna Watershed Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Task Force.<br />
*San Luis Obispo Creek: the NPDES permit for the City of San Luis Obispo will incorporate an effluent limit for their NPDES permit, regulations for storm water through a small MS4 permit, cropland nitrate sources will be regulated and monitored through the Conditional Waiver.<br />
*Santa Clara River: Ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate reductions will be regulated through denitrification upgrades to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and enforcement of effluent limits, NPDES permits, and agricultural Best Management Practices.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program] <br />
<br />
* [http://ccows.csumb.edu/home/ Central Coast Watershed Studies Team]<br />
<br />
* [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdl/303d_and_tmdl_projects.shtml Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 303(d) Investigations and TMDL Projects]<br />
<br />
* [[Beneficial uses]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain student work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessary reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:24:36Z<p>Nataliej: /* Stakeholders */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated'''], a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The [[beneficial uses]] include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
*Monterey Bay Coast Keeper<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:23:16Z<p>Nataliej: /* Summary */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated'''], a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The [[beneficial uses]] include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:20:16Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosion during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:19:03Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farm resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:16:51Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* Implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* Effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*On farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring]and reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the discharger resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:14:19Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* implementation of conservation practices as outlined in each discharger's Farm Plan<br />
* effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*on farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring] reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. However if the farmer resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:13:58Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single farm, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* implementation of conservation practices as outlined in the Farm Plan<br />
* effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*on farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring] reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| Not mentioned. hoever if the farmer resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliejhttp://ccows.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Central_Coast_Region_Agricultural_WaiverCentral Coast Region Agricultural Waiver2011-04-12T20:12:27Z<p>Nataliej: /* Implementation of Agricultural Order */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''(Otherwise known as the 'Ag Waiver' or 'Ag Order')'''<br />
<br />
A [[Watershed Issues|watershed-related issue]] examined by the [http://sep.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/ENVS_560/L_Watershed_Systems ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems] class at [http://csumb.edu CSUMB]. [[Image:Agwaiver.jpg|450px|thumb|right| Picture Reclamation Ditch looking upstream from San Jon Rd.(Photo: Don Kozlowski, June 2002). Copied from [http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CCoWS_DPR_FinalReport_040331c.pdf CCoWS DPR Final Report].]]<br />
<br />
== Summary ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In California, Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the ability to issue conditional waivers to regulate discharge from agricultural irrigation, known as "Ag Waivers". The intent of this program is to prevent agricultural contributions to the impairment water quality as defined in [http://ecoviz.csumb.edu/wiki/index.php/Clean_Water_Act Section 303(d)] of the Clean Water Act.<ref name="Agricultural Regulatory Program"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml Agricultural Regulatory Program]</ref> These require the monitoring of water sources in the region potentially impacted by agricultural operations. The Ag Waiver is “conditional” as the Water Quality Control Board has the authority to revoke it at any time. This conditional waiver is reviewed, revised, replaced, or reissued every five years. Growers are required to comply with several conditions, including: discharge prevention and management, water quality monitoring, and corrective actions for identified sources of impairment.<ref name="AgDischs"> [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/index.shtml CCRWQCB Agricultural Regulatory Program Overview]</ref> '''Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated''', a non-profit agency in the central coast region, conducts the cooperative monitoring program to assist growers in complying with monitoring requirements of the Ag Waiver program.<ref name="WFP">[http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_conditional_ag_waiver/ Western Farm Press. Conditional ag waiver: What is it?]</ref><br />
<br />
== Resources at stake ==<br />
<br />
There are many resources at risk of degradation from agricultural runoff. In order to provide the maximum benefit to its residents, the State of California has set a goal to achieve the highest water quality standards possible. To prevent a decline in beneficial uses of water resources, California maintains twenty categories of water quality standards.<ref name="BenUse">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/chapter_2/chapter2.shtml CCRWQCB Present and Potential Beneficial Uses]</ref> The beneficial uses include but are not limited to:<br />
<br />
* Drinking Water<br />
* Irrigation<br />
* Fresh Water Habitat<br />
* Marine Habitat<br />
* Estuarine Habitat<br />
* Areas of Special Biological Significance<br />
<br />
== The Regional Water Quality Control Board ==<br />
<br />
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has a long history in the state of California. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 is the primary law regulating the quality of both surface and ground waters. This Act empowers the State Water Resources Control Board as the agency responsible for water quality planning statewide and grants the RWQCBs authority. <ref name="Water Pollution Control Legislation">[http://groundwater.ucdavis.edu/Publications/Harter_FWQFS_8088.pdf]</ref> California contains nine Water Quality Control Regions, each regulated by its own RWQCB. <br />
<br />
<br />
The RWQCBs are responsible for the enforcement of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), this includes the enforcement of all conditional waivers of WDRs.The [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ Central Coast (Region 3) RWQCB] monitors and regulates water quality from southern San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties to the northern part of Ventura County.<br />
<br />
== Regulatory Background ==<br />
===1970's===<br />
*1972: Implementation of the Clean Water Act exempted irrigated agriculture discharge from federal regulation under the [http://cfpub.epa.gov/NPDES/ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NDPDES)] permit program.<br />
<br />
===1980's===<br />
*1983: The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a waiver officially exempting irrigation return flows and other discharges from agricultural lands from Waste Discharge Requirements.<ref name="ag order 2009">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/2009_0050_public_notice.pdf Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Irrigated Ag Order R3-2009-0050.]</ref> Waste water discharge from agricultural irrigation was similarly exempted through the issuance of Ag Waivers by the Central Valley, San Diego, and Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Boards <ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers"><br />
[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.Section 13269 of the California Water Code (CWC) grants Regional Water Quality Control Boards the authority to waive waste discharge requirements (WDRs).<br />
<br />
*1987: CWA was amended, adding Section 319 requiring states to regulate non-point source pollution. California developed a three-tiered system, including conditional waivers in the regulation of the agriculture industry.<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>. <br />
<br />
===1990's===<br />
*1999: the state legislature amended Section 13269 of the CWC, requiring RWQCBs to review existing conditional waivers, forcing waivers not revised or reissued to expire January 2003 <ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>. The amendment also required that new waivers be conditional upon compliance with water quality monitoring requirements, and have a term of no longer than five years.<ref name="ag order 2009"/><br />
<br />
===2000's===<br />
*2003: The CWC was amended to grant the State Water Board with the authority to instigate fees for waivers<ref name="History and Status of Agricultural Waivers">[http://www.headwatersinstitute.org/media/Agricultural%20Waivers%20History%20&%20Status.Baggett.pdf]</ref>.<br />
*2004: The most recent Ag waiver was issued, requiring that all farmers of irrigated land within the Central Coast region to:<ref name="ccwqpi"> [http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation, Inc.]</ref><br />
<br />
#Produce a Notice of Intent <br />
#Complete a 15 hour course on water quality management<br />
#Produce water quality management plan<br />
#Implement water quality improvement practices<br />
#Monitor water quality, either individually or through the Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP).<br />
<br />
*2009: In a Press Release on December 10, The Water Board directed the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff to distribute a preliminary report including the [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary draft order] for the regulation of discharges from irrigated lands on February 1, 2010.<br />
<br />
*2010: This [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_press_release.pdf preliminary report] and preliminary draft order became available on February 1, 2010 and was available to the public to review, comment, and provide alternative recommendations for regulating agricultural discharges. Water Board members request that members of the public submit comments or alternatives to staff by April 1,2010. In July 2010 the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board extended the 2004 Ag waiver to the end of March 2011. A [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/ag_order.shtml#nov19 revised draft of the waiver] was produced in November 2010 and by September 2011 a new draft of the waiver is scheduled to be produced.<br />
<br />
=== Recent Changes ===<br />
<br />
*2011: On March 2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board released the [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/index.shtml newest draft of the Ag Waiver]. The Ag Waiver was presented on March 17, 2011, additional comments and draft revisions are scheduled to be made at some time in April 2011. The changes outlined in the newest draft include: the removal of the 1,000 acre trigger, additions to the lowest tier constituents, five year groundwater monitoring for Tier 1 & 2, and additional language regarding stormwater and bare ground <ref name="Central Coast Vineyard Team">[<ref name="Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/agriculture/docs/about_agwaivers.pdf]</ref>.<br />
<br />
==Implementation of Agricultural Order==<br />
<br />
On July 9, 2004, the CCRWQB adopted the 2004 Agricultural Order. The 2004 Agricultural Order expired on July 9, 2009, and the Central Coast Water Board renewed it for a term of one year until July 10, 2010 (Order No. R3-2009-0050). On July 8, 2010, the Central Coast Water Board renewed the 2004 Agricultural Order again until March 31, 2011 (Order No. R3-2010-0040). The most recent Ag Waiver, Order No. R3-2011-0006 (Order), renews and revises the 2004 Agricultural Order.<br />
<br />
The 2011 Order proposes the discharge of waste from irrigated lands by requiring the following terms and conditions: <br />
* Dischargers are responsible for implementing management measures to achieve water quality improvements including practices and projects at the scale of a single far, or cooperatively among multiple farms in the watershed or sub watershed. <br />
* implementation of conservation practices as outlined in the Farm Plan (link?))<br />
* effective irrigation and nutrient management practices to reduce the amount of runoff and the concentration of nutrients in irrigation runoff<br />
* Managing areas, to protect soil from concentrated flows of water, <br />
* Implementing practices to detain or filter sediment and runoff before it leaves agricultural operations <br />
* Creation and implementation of the following reports: <br />
**Annual Compliance Document<br />
**Farm Plan<br />
**Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan<br />
**Water Quality Buffer Plan<br />
*on farm [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2011/march/Item_14/14_att2.pdf water quality monitoring] reporting to evaluate effects of discharges of waste from irrigated agricultural operations on waters of the state and to determine compliance with the Ag Order<br />
<br />
<br />
{|border="3"<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | Issues<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2004 Order No. R3-2004-0117<br />
!style="background: #efefef;" | 2011 Order No. R3-2011-0006<br />
|-<br />
| Backflow prevention<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| All dischargers must install and maintain adequate backflow prevention devices <br />
<br />
by October 1, 2012 (30).<br />
|-<br />
| Previous nitrate contamination Effect on Tier 1<br />
| The waiver does mention that if the farmer resides in an area where the groundwater has been prviously identified as being contaminated by nitrate then it is not their responsibility to treat it. However, if the farmer is using the contminated groundwater then they need to treat it appropriately before it leaves the land as runoff.<br />
| Besides previous requirements for Tier 1, discharger must not be within 1000 feet of a public water system well that exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrate, nitrite, or nitrate + nitrite10 (14 1c)<br />
|-<br />
| High Nitrate Loading Risk<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| By October 1, 2014 and by October 1 annually thereafter, Tier 2 and Tier 3 dischargers with high nitrate loading risk must record and report total nitrogen in the Annual Compliance Form, electronically in a format specified by the Executive Officer, per MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-02 and MRP Order No. R3-2011-0006-03, respectively.<br />
|-<br />
| Abandoned wells<br />
| Not Mentioned<br />
| Dischargers must properly destroy all abandoned ground water wells, exploration holes, or test holes <br />
<br />
exploration/test holes.<br />
|-<br />
| Erosion<br />
| Land managers must identify practices they will employ to reduce erosion and surface runoff. The waiver suggest a combination of practices should be used to reduce on-site erosion. These practices should reduce erosions during storm events as well as irrigation management practices. They suggest the following practices:<br />
*sediment detention basins including earthen embankments (following proper engineering standards)<br />
*cover crops<br />
*filter strips<br />
*furrow alignment<br />
| Dischargers must implement source control or treatment management practices to prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine particles in place. Dischargers must minimize the presence of bare soil vulnerable to erosion, such as unpaved roads. <br />
|-<br />
| Maintaining Riparian areas<br />
| Not mentioned, however suggested as a method that can be employed to minimize on site erosion<br />
| Dischargers must maintain existing riparian areas to minimize the discharge of waste and for streambank stabilization and erosion control.<br />
|-<br />
| MRP (Monitoring and Reporting)Requirements<br />
| Found for all dischargers in Order No.<br />
| One Order per tier. Tier One: Order No. R3-2011-0006-01; Tier 2: R3-2011-0006-; Tier 3: Order No. R3-2011-0006-03.<br />
|-<br />
| Submission of NOI<br />
| Submission of NOI guidlines<br />
| Dischargers seeking authorization to discharge under this Order must submit a completed electronic NOI form to the Central Coast Water Board. Dischargers already enrolled in the 2004 Agricultural Order and who have submitted their NOI electronically are not required to submit a new NOI. Upon submittal of an accurate and complete electronic NOI, the discharger is enrolled under the Order, unless otherwise informed by the Executive Officer. (55)<br />
|-<br />
| On Changing Tiers<br />
| Dischargers can only be classified as tier 2 for 3 years. After 3 years land managers are required to upgrade to tier 1. If you have not made a concerted effort to do so after 3 years, land managers will be issued waste discharge requirements unless oyou have notified the Regional board, prior to issuance, that you could not meet the requirement due to extenuating cirumstances<br />
| <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Stakeholders ==<br />
<br />
A diverse group of stakeholders from both public and private sector are involved in this program, including: <br />
*The '''Central Coast (Region 3) Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'''<br />
<br />
*'''Farmers''' practicing irrigated farming in the central coast region are subject to conditions of the Ag Waiver.<br />
<br />
*[http://www.ccwqp.org/whatwedo.html Central Coast Water Quality Preservation Incorporated (CCWQPI)]. Among the conditions imposed by the Ag Waiver is a requirement for water quality monitoring. A Cooperative Monitoring Program (CMP) has entrusted CCWQPI to conduct Ag waiver monitoring as a unbiased third-party. This CMP prevents the need for farmers to sample monitor their operations independently. <br />
<br />
*'''Environmental advocacy groups''' with an interest in fish, aquatic/riparian habitat, coastal ecosystems, or drinking water quality also have a vested interest in the success of the Ag Waiver program. Senate Bill 390 which initiated the new conditional Ag Waiver process was sponsored by two such organizations San Francisco Bay Keeper and Delta Keeper. <ref name="SB 390">[http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_390_cfa_19990423_162942_sen_comm.html CA State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality, Bill Analysis SB 390.]</ref> <br />
<br />
*'''All organisms''' making use of water that comes in contact with agricultural discharges; whether for drinking, recreation, or habitat, are all affected by the outcome of the Ag Waiver program.<br />
<br />
== Science ==<br />
<br />
Numerous scientific studies address concerns about water supply, water quality, wastewater treatment, water pollution control in surface and groundwaters, and the impacts, evaluation and management of hazardous waste. Studies used to support recommendations for the waiver program included [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_order_att6.pdf research from several agencies and organizations]. <br />
<br />
Waterbodies inside and surrounding agricultural areas the Central Coast have have exceeded maximum contaminant levels for water quality standards as well as biological and physical conditions. Various reports concerning agricultural practices conducted throughout the central coast have resulted in the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
'''Surface Water Concerns '''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Pollution from agricultural runoff poses a serious threat to California's water supply.<br />
* Most areas determined to be contaminated from agricultural pollutants within the last five years are still seriously contaminated.<br />
* The 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waterbodies for the Central Coast Region contained 167 water quality limited segments. <br />
* 60% of these identified agriculture as one of the potential sources of water quality impairment.<br />
* 82% of the most degraded sites in the Central Coast Region are in agricultural areas.<br />
* Nitrate contamination in areas heavily impacted by agriculture are not improving and appear to be getting worse.<br />
* 30% of all sites from [http://www.ccamp.org/ Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP)] and [http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/water_qual_monitoring.shtml Irrigated Agriculture Program Cooperative Monitoring Fact Sheets] contain average nitrate concentrations exceeding drinking water standards.<br />
* 57% of CCAMP sites exceed nitrate levels deemed necessary to protect aquatic life. <br />
* These contaminated waters draining into the ocean also put the quality of coastal waters at risk.<br />
<br />
'''Groundwater Concerns'''<ref name="CCRWQCB">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/programs/ag_waivers/docs/ag_preliminary_report.pdf Surface and Groundwater Quality Impairment]</ref><br />
<br />
Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Water quality data collected between 1994 and 2000 indicates that over 120 public water supply wells exceed maximum contaminant levels<br />
* Groundwater contamination from nitrate severely impacts shallow domestic drinking water supplies in the Central Coast Region. <br />
* Domestic wells are typically screened in shallower zones than public supply wells, and typically have higher nitrate concentrations as a result. <br />
* Communities depending on groundwater supplies for a majority of their water are greatly impacted by contamination issues<br />
* Groundwater contamination from agricultural runoff has resulted in the closure of domestic water supplies. <br />
* Adverse impacts to human health resulting from nitrate contaminated groundwater, likely due to agricultural land uses, have been reported by local agencies.<br />
<br />
== Tools ==<br />
<br />
Monitoring of agricultural runoff utilizes a diverse set of tools to assess water quality conditions. The State Water Resources Control Board published analytical and modeling requirements in the Conditional Waiver of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands. Chemistry analysis, toxicity testing, quantitative limits, laboratory standards and regeants, sample preparation methods, and analytical procedures are outlined in the plan. <ref name="Quality">[http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/water_issues/programs/tmdl/waivers/05_1220/appendix%208.pdf Quality Assurance Project Plan]</ref> <br />
<br />
===Measuring Agricultural Water Pollution:=== <br />
<br />
Understanding water quality changes requires an array of tests, including:<br />
<br />
'''Physical Tests:'''<br />
* Temperature<br />
* Total suspended solids<br />
* Turbidity<br />
'''Chemical Tests:'''<br />
* Total dissolved oxygen<br />
* Nutrients<br />
* Metals<br />
* pH<br />
'''Biological Tests:'''<br />
* Bacteria concentrations<br />
<br />
===Controlling Agricultural Water Pollution===<br />
<br />
Controlling agricultural runoff requires management of point source controls as well as non-point source controls. These include:<br />
<br />
'''Point source controls:'''<br />
* Containment tools in livestock operations that trickle waste water into grasslands<br />
* Constructing or utilizing wetlands to assist treatment of animal wastes and runoff from fields<br />
* Composting animal waste to produce manure for soil improvement<br />
<br />
'''Non-point source controls:'''<br />
* Erosion controls such as crop rotation, contour plowing and riparian buffers reduce soil erosion and agricultural runoff <br />
* Reduction in the application of synthetic fertilizers to reduce nitrate concentrations<br />
* Integrated Pest Management reduces the use of chemical pesticides<br />
* Increased tile drain spacing or decreased tile drain depth as a potential remedy to reduce nutrient transport into nearby streams (not yet official) <br />
<br />
===Organizations involved in water quality policy & monitoring===<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Surface Water Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) <ref name="CMP">[http://www.ccwqp.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Preservation]</ref><br />
* Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program (CCAMP) <ref name="CCAMP">[http://www.ccamp.org// Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program]</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
'''Central Coast Groundwater Data Collection Organizations'''<br />
* California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) <ref name="CDWR">[http://www.water.ca.gov/ California Department of Water Resources]</ref><br />
* California Department of Public Health (CDPH) <ref name="CDPH">[http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/DEFAULT.aspx California Department of Public Health]</ref><br />
* Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) <ref name="MCWRA">[http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us/ Monterey County Water Resources Agency]</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Mitigation and Remediation Organizations'''<br />
* USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service <ref name="NRCS">[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service]</ref> <br />
* Central Coast Water Quality Coalition <ref name="CCWQC">[http://www.agwaterquality.org/ Central Coast Water Quality Coalition]</ref><br />
<br />
== Future research ==<br />
<br />
Under the Clean Water Act, agricultural runoff has been exempt from permitting requirements under the NPDES regulations. If the regional board’s authority to issue waste discharge waivers is repealed, new studies need to reassess which dischargers that have not previously been subjected to permitting requirements will now be required to get a permit.<br />
<br />
A CWSP thesis project can involve analyzing differences in pollution levels in a selected study area within a short time period examining the impact of the repeal <br />
<br />
Extend the CWSP project to look at rates of pollution over the next several years to find out what kind of long term impact repealing the Ag Waiver will have on water quality.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Links ==<br />
<br />
* [[Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB)]]<br />
* [[Carneros Watershed]]<br />
* [[Watershed Issues on the Central Coast of California]]<br />
* [[Clean Water Act]]<br />
* [[ Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for the Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
* [[TMDLs in the Monterey Bay Region of California]]<br />
* [[Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients in Lower Salinas River Watershed, Monterey County, California]]<br />
<br />
== Disclaimer ==<br />
<br />
This page may contain students's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of [[CSUMB]], its staff, or students.</div>Nataliej