| |
DECISION ID |
13042 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
[NUMBER] lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. [NUMBER] of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. [NUMBER] of [NUMBER] samples exceeded the ______ and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. In addtion, the GWR beneficial use assessment is more correctly assessed using actual ground water data. The surface water objectives for this mineral constituent was tied to groundwater objectives for this constituent that was deleted from the Basin Plan (Resolution No. R8-2004-0001). Stakeholders have indicated their intent to re-visit the appropriateness of the surface water objective for this and other individual mineral objectives as part of the on-going TDS/Nitrogen Task Force. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7979 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Chloride |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
72 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 72 samples collected none exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments, or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection Recommended Criteria Maximum Concentration 1-hr avg: 860 mg/l |
| Guideline Reference: |
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology. 4304T |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek above Ely Basin. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with July 7, 2003 through 2/21/2007 |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16426 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sodium |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fifty-seven (57) of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Fifty-seven (57) of seventy-three (73) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. However, the water quality standard associated with this pollutant is deemed inappropriate to assess the groundwater beneficial use.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. RWQCB recommends not listing this waterbody for this mineral constituent because the GWR beneficial use assessment is more correctly assessed using actual groundwater data. The surface water objective for this mineral constituent was tied to groundwater objectives for this constituent that was deleted from the Basin Plan (Resolution No. R8-2004-0001). Stakeholders have indicated their intent to re-visit the appropriateness of the surface water objective for this and other individual mineral objectives as part of the ongoing TDS/Nitrogen Task Force. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16426 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7982 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sodium |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
73 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
57 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 73 samples collected 57 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Objective: 15 mg/l |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek Near Mira Loma. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with 7/7/2003 through 2/21/2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16427 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty (20) of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Twenty (20) of seventy-three (73) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. However, the water quality standard associated with this pollutant is deemed inappropriate to assess the groundwater beneficial use.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. RWQCB recommends not listing this waterbody for this mineral constituent because the GWR beneficial use assessment is more correctly assessed using actual groundwater data. The surface water objective for this mineral constituent was tied to groundwater objectives for this constituent that was deleted from the Basin Plan (Resolution No. R8-2004-0001). Stakeholders have indicated their intent to re-visit the appropriateness of the surface water objective for this and other individual mineral objectives as part of the ongoing TDS/Nitrogen Task Force. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16427 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7986 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sulfates |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
73 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
20 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 73 samples collected 20 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Objective: 25 mg/l |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek Near Mira Loma. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with 7/7/2003 through 2/21/2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16428 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Sixty-four (64) of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Sixty-four (64) of sixty-nine (69) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. However, the water quality standard associated with this pollutant is deemed inappropriate to assess the groundwater beneficial use.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. RWQCB recommends not listing this waterbody for this mineral constituent because the GWR beneficial use assessment is more correctly assessed using actual groundwater data. The surface water objective for this mineral constituent was tied to groundwater objectives for this constituent that was deleted from the Basin Plan (Resolution No. R8-2004-0001). Stakeholders have indicated their intent to re-visit the appropriateness of the surface water objective for this and other individual mineral objectives as part of the ongoing TDS/Nitrogen Task Force. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16428 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7988 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Dissolved Solids |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
69 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
64 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 69 samples taken 64 samples exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Objective: 200 mg/l |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek Near Mira Loma. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with 7/7/2003 through 2/21/2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
13050 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Nitrogen as N |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
(DO NOT LIST - CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT)
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two (2) of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two (2) of forty-three (43) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13050 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7991 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Nitrogen as N |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
43 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 43 samples taken 2 samples exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Objective: Total Inorganic Nitrogen - 10 mg/l |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek Near Mira Loma. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with 4/5/2006 through 2/21/2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
13051 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
pH |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2022 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirty (30) of the samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Thirty (30) of sixty-eight (68) samples exceed the Basin Plan Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 13051 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7984 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
pH |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
82 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
60 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 82 field measurements taken 60 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective of 8.5 pH units. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Objective: 6.5 - 8.5 pH units |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at one station in Cucamonga Creek Near Mira Loma. The measurements were taken in the field with a calibrated intstrument. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected multiple times per month for a period of several years beginning with 7/7/2003 through 2/21/2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |