Laserfiche WebLink
and would begin to provide a base level of protection for beneficial uses. Compliance <br /> with the terms of the phased TMDL implementation plan would be assessed by <br /> performance of specific actions by responsible entities as outlined in their <br /> implementation schedule. Responsible entities would be in compliance with the TMDL <br /> if these actions were completed on schedule, even if the interim dissolved oxygen <br /> performance goal is not being met in the DWSC. This situation, however, would indicate <br /> that implementation plan modifications addressing the non-attainment would be needed <br /> in the final TMDL phase. The final implementation phase would need to include all <br /> implementation actions required to meet the applicable Basin Plan dissolved oxygen <br /> objective. If the responsible entities do not meet completion milestones in the TMDL <br /> implementation plan,then the Regional Board will be forced to implement other strict <br /> discharge limitations and/or prohibitions of various types. <br /> Stakeholder Load Allocation <br /> The Steering Committee is in the process of developing an allocation agreement among <br /> the various stakeholders that will divide responsibility for providing financial or other <br /> resources needed for solving the problem more equitably among all contributors to the <br /> problem. This agreement, in effect,would become a load allocation, with the sum of the <br /> stakeholders' responsibilities under the agreement being the load. Staff, after <br /> consultation with legal counsel and USEPA,believes the concept of a stakeholder <br /> negotiated allocation agreement can satisfy the legal TMDL load allocation requirements <br /> of the CWA, which provides for a great deal of flexibility in how loads can be allocated. <br /> Staff also believes this concept, if properly prepared, fulfills the intent of the BPTCP to <br /> provide the opportunity to develop creative solutions and assure contribution from parties <br /> that can make no load reductions. <br /> Staff believes such an agreement would need to include adequate assurances to the <br /> Regional Board that the implementation plan will be executed. If the stakeholders <br /> signatory to the agreement are obtaining funds or other resources from agencies such as <br /> CALFED, they should provide assurance from those agencies that funding is <br /> forthcoming. Ultimately, however,the responsibility for obtaining the funds to <br /> implement the solutions should rest with the stakeholders signatory to the agreement. <br /> Discussions on specific content of such an agreement are ongoing. Once an <br /> implementation plan and an allocation agreement are received from the Steering <br /> Committee,they will be considered by staff in the development of the TMDL submission <br /> to USEPA and in the implementation plan that will eventually need to be adopted as a <br /> Basin Plan Amendment. <br /> Schedule <br /> In January 2002 the Steering Committee presented a Plan of Action to the Regional <br /> Board, which provided a description and timeline of activities to develop their suggested <br /> implementation plan and load allocation. The Plan of Action was significantly modified <br /> in May 2002 to incorporate the details of the phased approach described above. With the <br /> exception of the peer review convening about 3 months later than scheduled in the <br /> original version of the Plan of Action, there has been solid progress made by the Steering <br /> Committee since the last Regional Board update. The delay in holding the peer-review <br />