For Personal Reference Only - Not for Distribution Or Quotation

Watershed Forum Notes

FOR PERSONAL REFERENCE ONLY - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR QUOTATION

TMDLs and the NAPA RIVER listing……

Napa River Watershed: Is the entire Napa River Watershed in Napa County?

No, the Napa River watershed flows from Napa County into Solano County. The west side of the river is mostly surrounded by sloughs, mudflats, and levied salt ponds in Napa and Solano Counties. The east side of the river is levied and the cities of American Canyon and Vallejo border the River. Efforts to restore the Cargill salt ponds are underway by the State Coastal Conservancy, the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game (who acquired some of the property). The Napa River flows to the San Pablo Bay and through the Carquinez Straits into the San Francisco Bay.

General information and background about TMDLs: When? What? and Who?

When did this whole idea of listing impaired rivers get started?

The requirement to “list” impaired waterbodies and develop TMDLs has been in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) since its inception in 1972, but until the mid 1980’s, TMDLs received relatively little attention. For most of the 1970’s and 1980’s, point source pollution (pollution released from discrete outfalls such as discharge pipes) was considered to be the most significant problem affecting water quality in rivers and streams. Therefore, efforts to improve water quality focused on “point source” pollution controls and a set of technology-based solutions.

In general, water quality in California and nationwide improved as technology-based point source pollution controls were implemented - sewage treatment plants were built or upgraded and uniform levels of pollution control at discrete outfalls could be achieved. However, as waterbodies were still unable to meet the Clean Water Act’s goal of being “fishable and swimmable,” concerns arose over pollution from “non-point sources,” including landscape scale sources such as storm water and agricultural runoff and dust and air pollution that find their way into water bodies.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has federal regulatory authority over non-point sources, was sued by several environmental organizations in the mid-1980s because of their failure to adhere to the CWA, which outlines the manner by which polluted waters are identified and TMDLs drafted and implemented. To date, over 40 lawsuits have been filed throughout the country, mostly brought by environmental groups. The TMDL lawsuits were generally filed against USEPA due to its responsibility to approve TMDLs. Some of the lawsuits have resulted in negotiated settlements and consent decrees that are supervised by the courts.In California, environmentalists sued EPA for failing to establish TMDLs in all major watersheds. California is currently operating under three consent decrees covering most of the North Coast Region, all of the Los Angeles Region, and Newport Bay and its tributaries in the Santa Ana Region. Additional statewide suits are under litigation.The state, through several Regional Water Resources Control Boards (governed by the State Water Resources Control Board and the California EPA) is currently listing water impairments and developing TMDLs with direction from the CWA and ultimate regulatory authority coming from California’s Water Code and Porter-Cologne Act.

What list is this anyway? State? Federal?

It is a list of “water quality impaired” segments that is required by section 303(d) of the CWA. TMDLs, as a way to address impaired water quality, are also described in section 303(d). Water bodies can be listed as impaired for a wide variety of pollutants. The “list” is just one part of what has been described as the “Clean Water Act Train” (Georgia Legal Watch). The train consists of 4 parts:

1. Water Quality Standards
2. 305(b) Report
3. 303(d) List
4. TMDL

The CWA in reality is much more complex and has more parts which link to one another in a non-linear way – but ultimately all of the provisions relate back to the central question, “Are water quality standards being met?”

1. Water Quality Standards – What is a water body supposed to look like?

Water quality standards are established by the State and generally depict or define what is healthy. Standards consist of three components defined in the federal Clean Water Act: (a) designated uses of the water, (b) water quality criteria to protect the designated uses, and (c) an antidegradation policy directed at keeping healthy waters healthy.

1. Designated uses of the water: For the State of California, the SWRCB (directed by the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cal EPA) is required to designate the “beneficial uses” for each water body in the State.

-Designated beneficial uses for the Napa River are: Municipal and Domestic Water Supply, Agricultural Water Supply, Navigation, Contact and Non-Contact Water Recreation, Warm and Cold Fresh Water Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, and Fish Migration and Spawning.

1. Criteria: The SWRCB is required to develop water quality criteria (either quantitative or qualitative) that protect all designated uses. These criteria are defined in Basin Plans for each of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB).

-Criteria (or objectives by which the Napa River is being compared to) are defined in the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay RWQCB that covers this area (Region 2). The Basin Plan and its amendments can be found on-line at:

-Basin Plans are updated (amended) every 3 years at a minimum and can redefine “beneficial uses” for waterbodies

1. Antidegradation: This policy was incorporated into the CWA to prevent or limit activities that will chip away at existing water quality or improvements that have been achieved. The policy contains 3 tiers: 1) absolute protection for existing uses, 2) prevention of degradation to waters whose quality is above the minimum standards, unless allowing lower water quality is necessary to “accommodate important economic and social development,” and 3) prevention of any new pollution into Outstanding National Resource Waters.

2. 305(b) Report to Congress – Are there problems?

Section 305(b) of the CWA requires States to assess their waters every two years to determine whether designated uses are being met. This report provides input to development of the 303(d) list. Various types of assessment and monitoring information are used to develop the 305(b) report including monitoring/assessment completed by the RWQCB and other government agencies and information (monitoring, assessment, anecdotal) provided by the public. Much of the summary information used to inform the 305(b) report for California is available online in a Geospatial Waterbody System (

-The 2002 305(b) Report for the State of California was approved by the EPA in 2003. The main body of the report is available in segments on-line at:

3. 303(d) List – Where are the problems?

When waters don’t meet their designated uses, the TMDL process described in section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act is used as a policy to improve water quality such that it can support its designated uses. The first step in the TMDL process to develop a segment-by-segment list of impaired or threatened water bodies (commonly referred to as the 303(d) list). States are required to use “all existing and readily available water quality information” in compiling the list. The list must include all of the criteria violated for each segment and a priority for each listed segment, which determines the order in which TMDLs will be established. The 303(d) list for our region (Region 2) and for other regions can be accessed from the following link:

4. TMDLs: How can we fix identified problems?

TMDLs are composed of several elements, including a problem statement that describes how a water body is impacted by pollutants; the appropriate targets for pollutants; an assessment of the sources of pollution; the loading capacity of the impaired water; the allocation of allowable loads or load reductions among different sources; a plan for monitoring the effectiveness of a TMDL (recommended to be included); the exact means by which control actions will be accomplished (recommended to be included); and the identification of agencies responsible for ensuring that outcome (recommended to be included).

An example of a completed TMDL for sediment (in the Gualala River in CA) can be found at the following website:

Who is involved?

Several agencies and the public are involved in the 303(d) listing process…. many of them were discussed above. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, and Regional Water Resources Control Board are the agencies most directly involved with the CWA from the perspective of the 303(d) list and TMDLs. The public and other federal, state, and local agencies are involved to the extent that they have pertinent water quality information. To a large extent local government is also involved because many times the State looks to the Counties for generation of “local solutions” and supporting implementation of “management measures” defined in the TMDL. Private citizens and businesses may also become involved in developing and implementation a TMDL.

Some Napa River specifics…..

Who thought to assess the Napa river and why? Or were all rivers being assessed?

The CWA requires states to perform biannual assessment of their waters and listing of impaired waterbodies in the 305(b) report and 303(d) list, as discussed above. The RWQCB is required to do this for the State of California (SWRCB).

What were we first listed for and when?

Nutrients & pathogens: 1987

Siltation (sedimentation): 1990

What tests were done and when?

States are required to use “all existing and readily available water quality information” in compiling the 303(d) list.

The RWQCB relied on:

• evidence of widespread erosion (Soil Conservation Service, 1985; White, 1985; St. Helena Star, 1989)
• concerns regarding adverse impacts to fish habitat (Cordone and Kelly, 1961)

The primary impetus for listing was inferred decline during the historical period (1940s to present) of abundance and distribution of steelhead (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1968; Anderson, 1969), and other rare or threatened native species. Staff reviewed the above information and concluded based on professional judgment that beneficial uses [cold freshwater habitat and fish spawning] were impaired by excessive sedimentation.

While information and quantitative data regarding sediment and the relationship between sediment and cold freshwater habitat and fish spawning were limited at the time of the sediment listing, that is not the case today. Research has been conducted over the past few years that attempts to better understand sediment and its potential impact of fisheries. This is not to say that the research conducted is conclusive or that additional research and monitoring need not be conducted into the future. It is only to emphasize that although the original listing was based largely on professional judgment, subsequent testing and analysis has not provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the professional judgment was in error.

Were we de-listed for nutrients and pathogens? If so, when?

We have not been de-listed for nutrients and pathogens. The TMDLs are being developed.

What are the standards against which we are being tested?

Water quality standards are stated in the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2). This document can be downloaded from

Water quality standards include water quality objectives, which can be narrative and/or numeric [typically how much of pollutant in the water for how long, and how frequently], and a statement of beneficial uses [things like fisheries, recreation, water supply, etc.].

For sedimentation, water quality standards are primarily narrative, and for this reason a large measure of professional judgment has gone into impairment analysis. With regard to water quality objectives contained in the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region, it was concluded that the narrative criterion for settleable material was not satisfied because excessive deposition of fine sediment in the streambed at potential spawning sites adversely affects steelhead abundance, and therefore, beneficial uses for fish spawning (SPWN), preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE), and cold freshwater habitat (COLD).

Who is doing all the current research and testing?

For sedimentation: The limiting factors analysis was conducted in 2002 by Stillwater Sciences, Inc., a Berkeley-based environmental consulting firm, under a subcontract, and in collaboration with Professor William Dietrich, of the University of California at Berkeley, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. The Current phase of work, a sediment budget analysis, is nearly complete and being performed by UC Berkeley [again with Professor Dietrich as the Principal Investigator; and Martin Trso as the day-to-day Project Manager]. Additional information regarding the sediment TMDL and access to various documents and staff reports, including the Executive Summary and Final Report of the Limiting Factors Analysis can be accessed from the following website:

For pathogens: The Water Board and San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) have monitored bacteria throughout the Napa River watershed from October 2002 though May 2004. Napa County has been monitoring bacteria in the lower Napa River since September 2003. A preliminary TMDL Project Report is scheduled for completion in November 2004, with TMDL adoption expected in the later half of 2005. SFEI has several documents related to the Napa River on their website

For nutrients: The Water Board, in cooperation with San Francisco Estuary Institute, has been monitoring nutrients, algae, and dissolved oxygen in the Napa River and tributaries since October 2002. Monitoring is planned to continue though the summer of 2005. A preliminary nutrient TMDL Project Report is scheduled to be completed by fall of 2005, with TMDL adoption expected in later half of 2006.

What is the TMDL process and where are we in that process?

Basic information about the TMDL process can be found on the SWRCB website:

There are five steps in producing a TMDL:

1. Involve Stakeholders: Stakeholders are involved at the beginning of the process in order to provide input to the RWQCBs on the development of TMDLs.
2. Assess water body: In this step, pollution sources and amounts, or "loads," are identified for various times of the year. Then the overall effect of these loads on the water body is determined.
3. Define the Total Load and Develop Allocations: To ensure water quality standards are met and beneficial uses are attained, allocations of pollutant load to all sources are established for the pollutant(s) in question. The sum of the allocations must result in the water body attaining the applicable water quality standards.
4. Develop Implementation Plan: This step is a description of the approach and activities to be undertaken to ensure the allocations are met and identification of parties responsible for carrying out the actions.
5. Amend the Basin Plan: Federal law requires that TMDLs be incorporated into the Basin Plans. The Basin Plan is a legal document that describes how a Regional Board would manage water quality. The TMDLs must be formally incorporated into the Basin Plan to be part of the basis for Regional Board actions. Basin Plan amendments are adopted through a public process that requires approval of the TMDLs by a Regional Board, the State Board, the Office of Administrative Law, and USEPA Region 9.

Specific to Napa TMDLs:

For sedimentation:The sediment budget analysis will be completed in November 2004. A TMDL project report [informational item] will be completed and released for public review and comment by January 2005. A draft regulatory policy to resolve the sedimentation impairment is projected for completion and public hearing in June 2005.

For pathogens: A preliminary TMDL Project Report is scheduled for completion in November 2004, with TMDL adoption expected in the later half of 2005.

For nutrients: A preliminary nutrient TMDL Project Report is scheduled to be completed by fall of 2005, with TMDL adoption expected in later half of 2006.

How does one get de-listed? Has anyone?

According to CWA: waters can be de-listed only if:

(1)the original listing was based on demonstrably faulty data,

(2)the waterbody has been cleaned up since the previous listing, or

(3)the waterbody is the subject of an approved TMDL.

California Specific Information:

A policy providing guidelines for listing and de-listing water bodies in California was brought to and approved by the SWRCB on September 30, 2004. The guidelines are available on-line at The CEQA document for this policy includes several alternatives that were not necessary incorporated into the policy and can be found at

Further, TMDL Program Manager for USEPA in Region 9 (California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii), says that about 10% of all the waterbodies on the 1998 303(d) listed were removed (de-listed) with the 2002 update of the 303(d) list. Water body de-listings were primarily the result of analysis of new data that demonstrated that water quality standards were in fact being met.

1