| |
DECISION ID |
13098 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chromium, hexavalent | Mercury | Selenium |
| 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: |
(INSUFFICIENT NUMBER OF SAMPLES TO USE BINOMIAL STATISTICS IN TABLES OF POLICY)
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. The one sample taken did not 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. None of one (1) sample exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic life protection and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples is needed for application of table 3.1.
4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
8311 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Aluminum | Chromium, hexavalent | Mercury | Selenium |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| Aquatic Life Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
1 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
The only sample collected did not exceed the guidelines. |
| Data Reference: |
2006 HCMP Database |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Basin Plan Objective: Teh 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: |
USEPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic life protection - aluminun: 87 ppb, mercury: 0.77 ppb.
CTR Fresh Water Aquatic Life Protection 4 day Average continuous concentration - chromium VI: 11 ppb, selenium: 20 ppb. |
| Guideline Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
| |
Compilation of Water Quality Goals |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The sample was collected in Day Creek at Lucretia Road. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The sample was collected on 8/16/2005 |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
13094 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| 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 (1) line of evidence are 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 twenty-five samples exceeded the USEPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986 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 13094 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
21474 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
25 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the 25 samples collected, 2 exceeded EPA's Recommended single sample criteria. |
| Data Reference: |
Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
USEPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986: E. coli: log mean less than 126 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples per 30–day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 235 organisms/100mL for any 30 day period. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
The samples were taken at one location on Reach 1 of Mill Creek: Mill Creek 3. This site does not see very much foot traffic due to small parking area on top of the bank. |
| Temporal Representation: |
The samples were taken monthly starting on October 19, 2002 through June 3, 2004 |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. |
| QAPP Information: |
The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it was obtained under the auspices of a QAPP approved by the Regional Board. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |