Public Comment Letters Received During the 2017 Triennial Review of the Central Coastal Basin Plan

No. Commenting Organization Representative 1 City of Lompoc Patrick Wiemiller 2 GEI Consultants, Inc & Copper

Development Association, Inc. Robert W. Gensemer & Carrie Claytor

3 General Public Fred Krieger 4 General Public Fred Krieger 5 Grower-Shipper Association of Central

California Abby Taylor-Silva

260 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Tel: (212) 251-7200 | Fax: (212) 251-7234 | www.copper.org

Copper Development Association Inc.

October 10, 2017 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906 Re: Triennial Review of the Central Coastal Basin Plan

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Boards 2017 Triennial Review of the Central Coastal Basin Plan, on behalf of our client, the Copper Development Association (CDA). CDA played a significant role in sponsoring scientific research used in development of the freshwater Biotic Ligand Model (BLM) for copper, which was adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in its latest national ambient water quality criteria (USEPA 2007). CDA is now interested in encouraging efforts by states and tribes to incorporate these latest recommended USEPA national criteria for copper into their water quality standards programs. It is our understanding the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently accepting comments on issues to be considered during the 2017 Triennial Review of the Basin Plan. We recommend the Board consider revising the freshwater water quality objectives for copper to allow use of the BLM. With respect to possible amendments to the Basin Plan, we suggest the following addition:

Add a new footnote to the copper criteria entries in Table 3-5 of the 2016 Basin Plan, titled Toxic Metal Concentrations not to be Exceeded in Aquatic Life Habitats, that would state: Freshwater copper criteria may be calculated utilizing the procedures identified in EPAs Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria Copper (2007), EPA-822-R-07-001.

The current values in Table 3-5 are not-to-exceed values that only consider the relative hardness of the water (greater than or less than 100 mg/L hardness). Using only hardness as a modifying factor for metals criteria is an outdated approach that excludes a substantial body of peer-reviewed scientific literature demonstrating that additional modifying factors can and should be incorporated into regulatory benchmarks or standards, while providing the same levels of aquatic life protection required under the Clean Water Act (USEPA 1985, 1994, 2001, 2007). Like most metals, copper toxicity is a function of its bioavailability, which in addition to being controlled by hardness, is also strongly related to other important factors such as dissolved organic carbon (DOC), alkalinity, pH, and temperature. The key strength of the BLM is that it accounts for multiple factorsin addition to hardnessthat mitigate or exacerbate coppers toxic effect on aquatic life. In addition to the freshwater copper BLM, a saltwater BLM has also been developed which leverages the significant amount of research on the effects of copper to saltwater organisms that has been done since the 1985 revision of the criteria document and is currently being reviewed by the USEPA. We recommend the Board consider evaluating the saltwater BLM to update the copper marine water quality objectives in Table 3-6. Similar to copper, BLMs have been developed, validated, and are available for regulatory use for several other metals, including zinc, lead, nickel, and cadmium. While EPA has yet to develop formal recommended national ambient water quality criteria using BLMs for these other metals, the models are widely available (e.g., for zinc BLM-based criteria, see DeForest and Van Genderen 2012) and are being

applied in regulatory programs in several European countries. CDA fully supports and shares their desire to move towards bioavailability models, such as the BLM, as being the current state of both scientific and regulatory practice. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the proposed updates to Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan. Please let us know if you have any questions. We look forward to discussing this with you further. Sincerely, GEI CONSULTANTS, INC.

Robert W. Gensemer, Ph.D., GEI Senior Ecotoxicologist

Carrie Claytor, CDA Director of Health, Environment and Sustainable Development RWG cc: Steven Canton, GEI John Gondek, GEI

David DeForest, Windward Environmental Eric Van Genderen, International Zinc Association

References DeForest, D.K., and E.J. Van Genderen. 2012. Application of U.S. EPA guidelines in a bioavailability-

based assessment of ambient water quality criteria for zinc in freshwater. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 31(6):1264-1272.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of the aquatic organisms and their uses. PB85-227049, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994. Interim guidance on determination and use of water-effect ratios for metals. EPA-823-B-94-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Streamlined water-effect ratio procedure for discharges of copper. EPA-822-R001-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Aquatic Life Ambient Freshwater Quality Criteria Copper. EPA-822-R-07-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

From: Fred KriegerTo: Saiz, Steve@WaterboardsSubject: Tri ReviewDate: Friday, October 06, 2017 4:28:56 PM

Hi Steve - Excellent job on the Tri Review issues report. However, a possible conflict with respect tothe turbidity proposals: Issue 12 Turbidity WQOs This discusses protecting waterways from excessive sedimentation(e.g., 100 NTU). The suggested approach of using ranges and occasional exceedances to mimicnatural storm conditions seems to be reasonable. On the North Coast they appear to be addressingturbidity in a similar way. But, this approach appears to conflict with Issue 25 which would set a verylow fixed turbidity limit. Issue 25 consists of incorporating the secondary drinking water standards as MCLs. All but one ofthe RBs currently incorporate the primary MCLs in one form or another. About half also include thesecondary MCLs in their Basin Plans as is proposed for the Central Coast. One of the secondaryMCLs is turbidity at 5 NTU. This customer acceptance standard was developed for finished tap waterso, of course, it is quite low. My guess is that most of your natural waterways exceed this numberoften during dry weather and probably by at least an order of magnitude in wet weather. Issue 10 - There might also be a problem in applying MUN to ocean waters. What would be theassociated objectives? It might be appropriate to apply drinking water-related criteria when theparameter has the potential to bypass the standard treatment (RO, filtration, etc.) Current Basin Plan The turbidity limits which limit increases to 10%, 20% or 10 JTU/NTU are ofcourse, routinely exceeded during wet weather. I guess thats why Issue 12 is being considered. All of this brings up the bigger problem of applying MCLs to waterways and compliance forstormwater discharges. The secondary Al MCL is 0.2 mg/l, the Fe standard is 0.3 mg/l. Natural soilstypically contain 3 to 4% iron and 7% aluminum thus, even relatively low concentrations of naturalbackground material in runoff can result in exceedances. The AL primary MCL (1 mg/L) is also apersistent problem as well as some other naturally present parameters. What might make sense isapplying the MCLs for parameters which potentially will pass through standard treatment at drinkingwater facilities. Ironically, these facilities typically apply Al or Fe salts to aid precipitation ofpollutants. I ran into Chris Beegan at the CASQA conference last week. He speaks highly of you, of course. Interestingly, one of the environmental NGO speakers said they assume the standards apply end-of-pipe to stormwater discharges unless the Basin Plan includes mixing zone provisions. Yikes! Fred510 843-7889

mailto:steve.saiz@waterboards.ca.gov

From: Fred KriegerTo: Saiz, Steve@WaterboardsSubject: More questionsDate: Sunday, October 08, 2017 1:06:28 AM

On Issue 21, I cant see that this ruling established new water quality criteria for several of thepollutants that are identified as not in the California Toxics Rule (Arsenic, Selenium, and Zinc) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-15912/final-updated-ambient-water-quality-criteria-for-the-protection-of-human-health Maybe a different promulgation? Fred

mailto:steve.saiz@waterboards.ca.govhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-15912/final-updated-ambient-water-quality-criteria-for-the-protection-of-human-healthhttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-15912/final-updated-ambient-water-quality-criteria-for-the-protection-of-human-health

From: Fred KriegerTo: WB-RB3-centralcoast; Saiz, Steve@WaterboardsCc: Sobeck, Eileen@Waterboards; Bishop, Jonathan@WaterboardsSubject: Triennial ReviewDate: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:51:15 PMAttachments: Triennial Review Central Coast 10-12-2017 FK.doc

HiallIhopetheattachedcommentsarehelpful.TheyaremainlyfocusedontheproposedadoptionofthesecondaryMCLsassurfacewaterstandards.AbouthalfoftheRegionalBoardshavealreadyadoptedthesesecondaryMCLsalthoughcomplianceappearstobeveryunlikelyduetonaturalsources.Thishasnotbeenamajorissuetodateduetolimitedmonitoring.Fred510843-7889

mailto:centralcoast@waterboards.ca.govmailto:steve.saiz@waterboards.ca.govmailto:Eileen.Sobeck@Waterboards.ca.govmailto:jonathan.bishop@waterboards.ca.gov

October 12, 2017

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401

Attn: Mr. Steven Saiz, ssaiz@waterboards.ca.gov

Submitted via email: centralcoast@waterboards.ca.gov

Subject:2017 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 2017 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin. These comments are based on the Brief Issue Descriptions for the Triennial Review, dated August 25, 2017.

I reviewed the issue descriptions from the perspective of potential impacts on stormwater permittees, including the municipalities subject to the Phase I and Phase II permits, industries regulated by the Industrial General Permit, and construction projects subject to the Construction General Permit. I have also considered how the proposed changes will effect new categories of permittees such as school districts which may be included under the Phase II permit in the near future. The sections below discuss potential impacts on the permittees and offer suggestions for addressing some of the concerns. For several of the issues, the proposed changes to the Basin Plan will result in major impacts which are likely inadvertent. I hope these comments are helpful as the Region continues development of the Triennial Review.

Issue 25: Incorporate Secondary Drinking Water Standards as WQOs

The Central Coast Basin Plan currently incorporates the primary drinking water standards (i.e., primary maximum contaminant levels, MCL) as water quality objectives (WQO) by reference to Title 22, California Code of Regulations (California MCLs). These objectives apply to waterways with the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use (MUN). Most freshwaters in California are designated as MUN waterways. The proposal for this Triennial Review is to additionally incorporate the Secondary Drinking Water Standards to protect MUN-classified waterways. These secondary MCLs are Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Levels and were developed for finished drinking water. The secondary MCLs are not federally enforceable by EPA, but EPA does require a special notice for exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL. The fluoride secondary MCL is not an issue in these comments.

Exceedances of proposed iron and aluminum objectives

The potential problem with this proposed action is that many natural surface waters exceed several of the proposed secondary MCL-based objectives during wet weather and also in dry weather depending on the waterway. These exceedances occur during wet weather because turbidity in waterways becomes naturally elevated and surface soils are mobilized at higher concentrations. For example, iron and aluminum together constitute roughly 11% of natural surface soils in California. As shown in Table 1, very low concentrations of these soils in waterways or in urban stormwater runoff result in non-compliance with water quality objectives derived from the secondary MCLs.

Table 1 Estimated Potential Exceedances of Objectives when Suspended Solids in Waterways are Composed of Natural Soils

Constituent

Background Concentration in California Soils (1)

Concentration (assuming total suspended solids = 100 mg/l) (2)

Potential Central Coast Objectives Based on Secondary MCLs

Aluminum

7.3%

7.3 mg/l

0.2 mg/l

Iron

3.7%

3.7 mg/l

0.3 mg/l

(1) Average; UC Riverside, 1996, posted here

(2) Additionally assuming that most or all of the Al and Fe is in particulate form.

A total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 100 mg/L was used in the table because waterways un-impacted by human activity will often have TSS concentrations above 100 mg/L during wet weather. In addition, 100 mg/L this is a typical value in stormwater runoff from highways and urban areas. This value is also used as the annual numeric action level (NAL) in the Industrial General Permit (IGP).

Exceedances in natural (i.e., un-impacted) waterways is suggested by research conducted by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. The researchers assessed seventeen natural southern California creeks during wet weather and found an average TSS of 3,890 mg/L and a median value of 184 mg/L (see Attachment A). Waterways in the Central Coast may have similar values during wet weather. Using an estimated TSS value of 100 mg/L is therefore likely conservative. It is reasonable to assume that exceedances in stormwater runoff resulting from natural soils will be common even when TSS levels in the runoff are much lower than the 100 mg/L used in the table.

The secondary drinking water standards were developed to apply to drinking water after treatment. In fact, most drinking water treatment plants often add iron or aluminum salts to promote coagulation, flocculation and precipitation. For example, aluminum sulfate (alum) is typically added in a 50% solution at about 20 mg/L.

Exceedances of proposed turbidity objective

The California secondary MCL for turbidity of 5 NTU is also a major concern if it is used as an objective because it is often naturally exceeded, especially during wet weather. For example, the Cooperative Monitoring Program sampled the Salinas River at Gonzales River Road Bridge during 2006 and 2007. The 2-year average turbidity was 204 NTU. The Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program data also indicates that the 5 NTU drinking water standard is often exceeded. The Central Coast aquatic life goal for turbidity is 25 NTU because turbidity exceeding 25 NTUs can reduce feeding ability in trout (based on work by Sigler). This level is also the guideline value adopted for 303(d) listing by the Central Coast Region and almost 40 waterways in the Region are already listed for turbidity. Obviously, lowering the objective to 5 NTU will result in many more listings. The value of 25 NTU is an aquatic life objective while the 5 NTU is directed at consumers of drinking water. However, there is no evidence that 5 NTU in source waters affects finished drinking water after treatment.

The 5 NTU standard is also significantly different than the potential turbidity limits that may be developed as part of Issue 14 in the Triennial Review. As presented, this issue is a proposal to establish a turbidity numeric water quality objective to protect aquatic life beneficial uses from excessive sedimentation (e.g., 100 NTU) and to ensure that aquatic life can search for food (25 to 40 NTU). The discussion notes that since turbidity levels naturally fluctuate, such as during storm events, the objectives could be expressed in ranges, seasonally, or with allowable occasions of exceedance in order to mimic natural storm conditions. This approach appears appropriate for addressing turbidity rather than applying consumer acceptance contaminant levels developed for finished drinking water to surface waters.

Suggestions:

1. Assess impacts on Central Coast waterways and stormwater runoff discharges if the secondary MCLs are adopted as surface water standards.

2. Focus implementation of additional standards on those pollutants or parameters which will potentially impact finished drinking water, i.e., those constituents not adequately controlled by standard drinking water treatment (e.g., dissolved constituents such as TDS, chloride, sulfate).

3. Consider alternative approaches for regulating the targeted constituents. For example, an alternative approach for addressing the secondary MCLs is being considered by the Central Valley Board during their Triennial Review. Their Issue 6: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as Water Quality Objectives for Surface and Ground Waters will assess the option of determining compliance with secondary MCLs by using a filtered water sample for metals, color and turbidity. If MCLs must be applied to surface waters this may be an appropriate approach because it will eliminate most of the problems caused by natural constituents normally present in waterways, especially during wet weather.

Proposed new issue for the Triennial Review

A related issue concerns the primary MCLs. The primary MCL for aluminum is 1 mg/L (0.2 is the secondary MCL addressed in the preceding comments). As indicted in Table 1, exceedances of the primary MCLs in natural waterway will be identified wherever monitoring is implemented for aluminum. Potentially, some of the other primary MCL constituents will also exceed the primary MCLs due to natural sources.

This problem of the primary MCL for aluminum is demonstrated by a historical evaluation of aluminum concentrations in Ventura County waterways during wet weather. The Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSQMP) prepared an assessment of aluminum in three major watersheds. This assessment found that 74.2 percent of all wet weather water quality samples collected by the VCSQMP exceeded 1 mg/L. However, in natural watersheds upstream from anthropogenic activities, 100% of wet weather samples exceeded 1 mg/L.

An alternative approach of filtering the sample prior to analysis has been implemented in New Mexico, with approval from EPA. The goal is to remove or minimize the mineral phases present in the sample. This approach will reduce the natural particulates and other soil residue which normally carry a significant portion of the aluminum but which do not present risk to aquatic organisms or consumers. This is appropriate because aluminum toxicity is associated with dissolved aluminum with the exception of low pH waterways. The filtration step prior to analysis is described in the New Mexico standards:

For aluminum, the criteria are based on analysis of total recoverable aluminum in a sample that is filtered to minimize mineral phases as specified by the department.

Naturally occurring high levels of aluminum in many waterways, especially during wet weather, is the major reason to consider some form of filtration prior to analysis.

Suggestion:

1. Assess the impact and risks and benefits of applying filtration to samples before assessing compliance with the primary MCLs currently included in the Basin Plan. As appropriate, require filtration for some or all of the primary MCL constituents.

Issue 4 Establish a Tributary Rule

This issue would involve extending downstream beneficial uses to upstream waters (tributary rule). Many tributaries have significantly different physical and biological characteristics compared with downstream waterways. For example, a tributary may have intermittent flow while the downstream waterway, with established beneficial uses, has year-round flow. Consequently, both waterways will support very different beneficial uses and will have different biota in the waterway requiring different levels of protection. A general tributary rule applicable to all waterways will result in beneficial uses be assigned to waterways where they are obviously not present due to natural causes or other reasons such as channelized or modified waterways.

Suggestion:

1. Apply the tributary rule only on a site-specific basis after assessing the waterway being considered and determining that the proposed extension of the beneficial uses would be appropriate for the tributaries involved.

______________________________________________

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the issues being considered during the Triennial Review. If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 843-7889 or fkrieger@msn.com

Sincerely,

Fred Krieger

Attachment A: Natural background concentrations during wet weather in southern California creeks

cc: Eileen Sobeck, State Water Board

Jonathan Bishop, State Water Board

Attachment ANatural background concentrations of total suspended solids during wet weather in southern California creeks

(Flow weighted mean concentrations)

Site name

TSS mg/L

Arroyo Seco

107.03

Arroyo Sequit

461.24

Bear Creek Matilija

242.25

Bear Creek WFSGR

6.29

Bell Creek

93.41

Chesebro Creek

200.85

Cattle Creek EFSGR

223.76

Coldbrook NFSGR

54.25

Cristianitos Creek

4,689.18

Fry Creek

11.08

Mill Creek

0.25

Piru Creek

5,454.92

Runkle Canyon

2,375.17

Santiago Creek

13.97

Sespe Creek

51,969.43

Silverado Creek

38.70

Tenaja Creek

184.15

Average

3,890

Median

184

Excerpted from: Stein, E. and V. Yoon. 2007. Assessment of Water Quality Concentrations and Loads from Natural Landscapes. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Technical Report 500. February 2007. Appendix VIII: Wet weather concentrations, loads, and fluxes for each study site; posted: ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/500_NL_APPENDIX_VIII.pdf

..titted to freshwater

quality

Flouride may be a future isse, see: Low Prenatal Exposures to Fluoride: Are There Neurotoxic Risks for Children. HYPERLINK "https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2289/" Article.

Sigler, et al. 1984. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 142 150.

Larry Walker Associates. 2014. Historical Data Evaluation of Aluminum in the Ventura River, Santa Clara River, and Calleguas Creek Watersheds. June.

2

October 12, 2017 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Attn: Mr. Steven Saiz, ssaiz@waterboards.ca.gov Submitted via email: centralcoast@waterboards.ca.gov Subject: 2017 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central

Coastal Basin To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the 2017 Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin. These comments are based on the Brief Issue Descriptions for the Triennial Review, dated August 25, 2017. I reviewed the issue descriptions from the perspective of potential impacts on stormwater permittees, including the municipalities subject to the Phase I and Phase II permits, industries regulated by the Industrial General Permit, and construction projects subject to the Construction General Permit. I have also considered how the proposed changes will effect new categories of permittees such as school districts which may be included under the Phase II permit in the near future. The sections below discuss potential impacts on the permittees and offer suggestions for addressing some of the concerns. For several of the issues, the proposed changes to the Basin Plan will result in major impacts which are likely inadvertent. I hope these comments are helpful as the Region continues development of the Triennial Review. Issue 25: Incorporate Secondary Drinking Water Standards as WQOs The Central Coast Basin Plan currently incorporates the primary drinking water standards (i.e., primary maximum contaminant levels, MCL) as water quality objectives (WQO) by reference to Title 22, California Code of Regulations (California MCLs). These objectives apply to waterways with the municipal and domestic supply beneficial use (MUN). Most freshwaters in California are designated as MUN waterways. The proposal for this Triennial Review is to additionally incorporate the Secondary Drinking Water Standards to protect MUN-classified waterways. These secondary MCLs are Consumer Acceptance Contaminant Levels and were developed for finished drinking water. The secondary MCLs are not federally enforceable by

mailto:ssaiz@waterboards.ca.govmailto:centralcoast@waterboards.ca.govhttps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/dwregulations-2017-09-14.pdf

2

EPA, but EPA does require a special notice for exceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL. The fluoride secondary MCL is not an issue in these comments.1 Exceedances of proposed iron and aluminum objectives The potential problem with this proposed action is that many natural surface waters exceed several of the proposed secondary MCL-based objectives during wet weather and also in dry weather depending on the waterway. These exceedances occur during wet weather because turbidity in waterways becomes naturally elevated and surface soils are mobilized at higher concentrations. For example, iron and aluminum together constitute roughly 11% of natural surface soils in California. As shown in Table 1, very low concentrations of these soils in waterways or in urban stormwater runoff result in non-compliance with water quality objectives derived from the secondary MCLs.

Table 1 Estimated Potential Exceedances of Objectives when Suspended Solids in Waterways are Composed of Natural Soils

Constituent Background

Concentration in California Soils (1)

Concentration (assuming total suspended solids =

100 mg/l) (2)

Potential Central Coast Objectives Based on

Secondary MCLs

Aluminum 7.3% 7.3 mg/l 0.2 mg/l

Iron 3.7% 3.7 mg/l 0.3 mg/l

(1) Average; UC Riverside, 1996, posted here (2) Additionally assuming that most or all of the Al and Fe is in particulate form. A total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of 100 mg/L was used in the table because waterways un-impacted by human activity will often have TSS concentrations above 100 mg/L during wet weather. In addition, 100 mg/L this is a typical value in stormwater runoff from highways and urban areas. This value is also used as the annual numeric action level (NAL) in the Industrial General Permit (IGP). Exceedances in natural (i.e., un-impacted) waterways is suggested by research conducted by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. The researchers assessed seventeen natural southern California creeks during wet weather and found an average TSS of 3,890 mg/L and a median value of 184 mg/L (see Attachment A). Waterways in the Central Coast may have similar values during wet weather. Using an estimated TSS value of 100 mg/L is therefore likely conservative. It is reasonable to assume that exceedances in stormwater runoff resulting from natural soils will be common even when TSS levels in the runoff are much lower than the 100 mg/L used in the table.

1 Flouride may be a future isse, see: Low Prenatal Exposures to Fluoride: Are There Neurotoxic Risks for Children. Article.

https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/secondary-drinking-water-standards-guidance-nuisance-chemicalshttp://envisci.ucr.edu/downloads/chang/kearney_special_report_1996.pdfhttps://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/igp_20140057dwq.shtmlhttps://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2289/

3

The secondary drinking water standards were developed to apply to drinking water after treatment. In fact, most drinking water treatment plants often add iron or aluminum salts to promote coagulation, flocculation and precipitation. For example, aluminum sulfate (alum) is typically added in a 50% solution at about 20 mg/L. Exceedances of proposed turbidity objective The California secondary MCL for turbidity of 5 NTU is also a major concern if it is used as an objective because it is often naturally exceeded, especially during wet weather. For example, the Cooperative Monitoring Program sampled the Salinas River at Gonzales River Road Bridge during 2006 and 2007. The 2-year average turbidity was 204 NTU. The Central Coast Ambient Monitoring Program data also indicates that the 5 NTU drinking water standard is often exceeded. The Central Coast aquatic life goal for turbidity is 25 NTU because turbidity exceeding 25 NTUs can reduce feeding ability in trout (based on work by Sigler2). This level is also the guideline value adopted for 303(d) listing by the Central Coast Region and almost 40 waterways in the Region are already listed for turbidity. Obviously, lowering the objective to 5 NTU will result in many more listings. The value of 25 NTU is an aquatic life objective while the 5 NTU is directed at consumers of drinking water. However, there is no evidence that 5 NTU in source waters affects finished drinking water after treatment. The 5 NTU standard is also significantly different than the potential turbidity limits that may be developed as part of Issue 14 in the Triennial Review. As presented, this issue is a proposal to establish a turbidity numeric water quality objective to protect aquatic life beneficial uses from excessive sedimentation (e.g., 100 NTU) and to ensure that aquatic life can search for food (25 to 40 NTU). The discussion notes that since turbidity levels naturally fluctuate, such as during storm events, the objectives could be expressed in ranges, seasonally, or with allowable occasions of exceedance in order to mimic natural storm conditions. This approach appears appropriate for addressing turbidity rather than applying consumer acceptance contaminant levels developed for finished drinking water to surface waters.

Suggestions:

1. Assess impacts on Central Coast waterways and stormwater runoff discharges if the secondary MCLs are adopted as surface water standards.

2. Focus implementation of additional standards on those pollutants or parameters which

will potentially impact finished drinking water, i.e., those constituents not adequately controlled by standard drinking water treatment (e.g., dissolved constituents such as TDS, chloride, sulfate).

2 Sigler, et al. 1984. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113: 142 150.

4

3. Consider alternative approaches for regulating the targeted constituents. For example, an alternative approach for addressing the secondary MCLs is being considered by the Central Valley Board during their Triennial Review. Their Issue 6: Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) as Water Quality Objectives for Surface and Ground Waters will assess the option of determining compliance with secondary MCLs by using a filtered water sample for metals, color and turbidity. If MCLs must be applied to surface waters this may be an appropriate approach because it will eliminate most of the problems caused by natural constituents normally present in waterways, especially during wet weather.

Proposed new issue for the Triennial Review A related issue concerns the primary MCLs. The primary MCL for aluminum is 1 mg/L (0.2 is the secondary MCL addressed in the preceding comments). As indicted in Table 1, exceedances of the primary MCLs in natural waterway will be identified wherever monitoring is implemented for aluminum. Potentially, some of the other primary MCL constituents will also exceed the primary MCLs due to natural sources. This problem of the primary MCL for aluminum is demonstrated by a historical evaluation of aluminum concentrations in Ventura County waterways during wet weather. The Ventura Countywide Stormwater Quality Management Program (VCSQMP) prepared an assessment of aluminum in three major watersheds.3 This assessment found that 74.2 percent of all wet weather water quality samples collected by the VCSQMP exceeded 1 mg/L. However, in natural watersheds upstream from anthropogenic activities, 100% of wet weather samples exceeded 1 mg/L. An alternative approach of filtering the sample prior to analysis has been implemented in New Mexico, with approval from EPA. The goal is to remove or minimize the mineral phases present in the sample. This approach will reduce the natural particulates and other soil residue which normally carry a significant portion of the aluminum but which do not present risk to aquatic organisms or consumers. This is appropriate because aluminum toxicity is associated with dissolved aluminum with the exception of low pH waterways. The filtration step prior to analysis is described in the New Mexico standards:

For aluminum, the criteria are based on analysis of total recoverable aluminum in a sample that is filtered to minimize mineral phases as specified by the department.

Naturally occurring high levels of aluminum in many waterways, especially during wet weather, is the major reason to consider some form of filtration prior to analysis.

3 Larry Walker Associates. 2014. Historical Data Evaluation of Aluminum in the Ventura River, Santa Clara River, and Calleguas Creek Watersheds. June.

5

Suggestion:

1. Assess the impact and risks and benefits of applying filtration to samples before assessing compliance with the primary MCLs currently included in the Basin Plan. As appropriate, require filtration for some or all of the primary MCL constituents.

Issue 4 Establish a Tributary Rule This issue would involve extending downstream beneficial uses to upstream waters (tributary rule). Many tributaries have significantly different physical and biological characteristics compared with downstream waterways. For example, a tributary may have intermittent flow while the downstream waterway, with established beneficial uses, has year-round flow. Consequently, both waterways will support very different beneficial uses and will have different biota in the waterway requiring different levels of protection. A general tributary rule applicable to all waterways will result in beneficial uses be assigned to waterways where they are obviously not present due to natural causes or other reasons such as channelized or modified waterways.

Suggestion:

1. Apply the tributary rule only on a site-specific basis after assessing the waterway being considered and determining that the proposed extension of the beneficial uses would be appropriate for the tributaries involved.

______________________________________________ Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the issues being considered during the Triennial Review. If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 843-7889 or fkrieger@msn.com Sincerely, Fred Krieger Attachment A: Natural background concentrations during wet weather in southern California

creeks cc: Eileen Sobeck, State Water Board

Jonathan Bishop, State Water Board

mailto:fkrieger@msn.com

6

Attachment A Natural background concentrations of total suspended solids during

wet weather in southern California creeks (Flow weighted mean concentrations)

Site name TSS mg/L

Arroyo Seco 107.03

Arroyo Sequit 461.24

Bear Creek Matilija 242.25

Bear Creek WFSGR 6.29

Bell Creek 93.41

Chesebro Creek 200.85

Cattle Creek EFSGR 223.76

Coldbrook NFSGR 54.25

Cristianitos Creek 4,689.18

Fry Creek 11.08

Mill Creek 0.25

Piru Creek 5,454.92

Runkle Canyon 2,375.17

Santiago Creek 13.97

Sespe Creek 51,969.43

Silverado Creek 38.70

Tenaja Creek 184.15

Average 3,890

Median 184

Excerpted from: Stein, E. and V. Yoon. 2007. Assessment of Water Quality Concentrations and Loads from Natural Landscapes. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Technical Report 500. February 2007. Appendix VIII: Wet weather concentrations, loads, and fluxes for each study site; posted: ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/500_NL_APPENDIX_VIII.pdf

ftp://ftp.sccwrp.org/pub/download/DOCUMENTS/TechnicalReports/500_NL_APPENDIX_VIII.pdf

October 12, 2017 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Attn: Steven Saiz 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Brief Issue Descriptions for the Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin Dear Mr. Saiz, On behalf of the Grower Shipper Association of Central California (GSA) I am writing to provide comments on the draft Brief Issue Descriptions for the Triennial Review of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Triennial Review). We appreciate the opportunity to provide input as you consider which basin plan amendments you plan to make a priority in the coming three years. Our comments, by issue number, are as follows: Issue 2: Clarify Uses for Waterbodies Not Specifically Named It concerns us that the Water Board is considering adding a blanket beneficial use designation to waterbodies not specifically named. We believe that strong science should inform the need and use of these waterbodies. We are especially concerned about adding REC-1 and REC-2 and COLD or WARM designations to waterbodies without justification. In our view, the addition of beneficial uses without scientific defensibility leads to situations like the Blanco Drain, which in the 1970s was designated for REC-1 and REC-2, but has not been swimmable, wadeable, fishable, or otherwise recreational in any documentation or historical narrative weve seen. REC-1 and REC-2 Definitions are as Follows: (Board, 2014)

Water Contact Recreation (REC-1) - Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs.

Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2) - Uses of water for recreational activities

involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tidepool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.

Weve had conversations with Regional Board staff about these frustrations and as we understand theres limited information about why they were originally designated. We would like to see them removed, but understand the process of removal by the Environmental

Grower-Shipper Association of Central California OUR MEMBERS: PARTNERS PRODUCING PROSPERITY

2 | C o m m e n t s o n T r i e n n i a l R e v i e w 1 0 . 1 2 . 1 7 Protection Agency is challenging. We strongly encourage you to not add any beneficial uses to waterbodies without strong science and documentation of the relevance of the beneficial use. Issue 4: Establish a Tributary Rule Similar to concerns communicated on Issue 2, we are very concerned with the prospect of tributaries being listed with new beneficial uses that match waterbodies they drain into without scientific review of the applicability of these beneficial uses. Staff notes that establishment of a tributary rule may be unnecessary we encourage that you do not create a blanket beneficial use in this manner. Issue 5: Modify Groundwater Recharge Use Definition If you prioritize this issue, we suggest you consider the importance and value of multi-benefit projects, such as the Salinas River Stream Maintenance Program, which focuses on flood mitigation, preservation of critical habitat in conjunction with maintenance of areas and vegetation that dont provide good habitat, recharge of groundwater and protection of farm fields and community infrastructure. Issue 10: Add MUN use for Coastal Waters Ocean Waters are very different than inland surface waters and the Regional Board should seriously consider the impact of designating MUN to saline coastal waters prior to doing so. Issue 13: Update Groundwater Basin Boundary Map and Table We support this amendment and call attention to the fact that more amendments may be made in 2018. Issue 14: WQO for Turbidity; Issue 15: WQO for Aquatic Life Protection; and Issue 16: Temperature WQOs & Nitrate WQO for Aquatic Life Protection & Additive Toxicity WQOs. The State Water Resources Control Board is working on statewide policies at this time. As you consider timing we suggest the Central Coast Board actions not get ahead of the State Board. Issue 22: Develop Water Flow Objectives We are concerned with this proposed amendment and how it might interfere with water rights. We are also concerned that this requirement could conflict with biological opinions or habitat conservation plans assigned to any waterbodies, or potentially hinder the opportunity to implement multi-benefit projects along waterbodies in the basin. Issue 23: Revise Pesticides Objective This concerns us because different materials might not present the same challenges and they shouldnt be lumped into one category. Detection does not equate impact. Issue 25: Incorporate Secondary Drinking Water Standards as WQOs Secondary MCLs are consumer acceptance standards not health based standards. It would be inappropriate to require surface waters to meet these standards which when applied to drinking water are applied at the tap, not in the source water. Issue 46: Watershed and Integrated Water Resource Protection We recommend you wait to focus attention on this issue until the SGMA plans have been developed throughout the Region. These should be complete in 2020 and 2022, depending on the priority of each of the basins in the region.

3 | C o m m e n t s o n T r i e n n i a l R e v i e w 1 0 . 1 2 . 1 7 Thank you again for your consideration of our comments as you prioritize your triennial review schedule for the coming three years. Please contact me with any questions at abby@growershipper.com or at 831-422-8844. Sincerely, Abby Taylor-Silva Vice President, Policy & Communications Grower-Shipper Association of Central California

tri_rev_comment_letters_2017.pdfL1 - City LompocL2 - Gensemer and ClaytorL3 - Fred KriegerL4 - Fred FriegerL5 - Grower-Shipper Association of Central CA