| Water Body Name: | Aliso Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9011300019990208093130 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
6543 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Natural Sources | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirteen of the 13 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 removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. 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. Thirteen of the 13 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria for phosporus and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7513 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All thirteen flow-weighted event mean concentrations exceeded the water quality objective according to results in the Orange County Storm Water Annual Progress Report, 2007. Samples were collected during two to six storm events a year from 2002-2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) has a goal of 0.1 mg/L. for phosphorus in streams and other flowing waters |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Aliso/Woods Canyon Park at 33.5437Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Aliso/Woods Canyon Park at 33.5437°, 117.7325°. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during two to six storm events a year from 2002-2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the toxicity portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the County of Orange's NPDES monitoring program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
DECISION ID |
17884 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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 |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This water body is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 12 of 13 samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment 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. 12 of 13 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, however as required under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, pollutant(s) could not be directly associated with the Benthic Community Effects. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26347 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen samples of IBI data were taken from May 1998 to May 2001 at two sampling sites. Of the total number of samples, twelve samples exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish and Game IBI Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at two sites: 901ACPPDx and 901ACCCRx on Aliso Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during one to three events annually over a four year period from May 1998 to May 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". | ||||
| Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure | |||||
| The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan | |||||
DECISION ID |
17148 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the four samples exceed water quality objective for selenium. 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. Three of the four samples exceed the CTR Freshwater Chronic (CCC) 5 ug/L water quality objective for selenium and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9076 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected at Aliso Creek station 901SJALC6 on October 2002, January, April, May 2003, three showed excessive selenium concentrations. Results are from California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR Freshwater Chronic (CCC) 5 ug/L. (U.S. EPA, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Aliso Creek station (901SJALC6). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on October 2002, January 2003, April 2003, May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
16334 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Natural Sources | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. Twelve of the 13 samples exceed the water quality objective for Total Nitrogen as N. 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. Twelve of 13 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria for total nitrogen as N 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. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7514 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twelve of thirteen flow-weighted event mean concentrations exceeded the water quality objective according to results in the Orange County Storm Water Annual Progress Report, 2007. Samples were collected during two to six storm events a year from 2002-2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) states: A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used. Since the goal for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L, then according to the ratio provided, the goal for total nitrogen is 1 mg/L. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Aliso/Woods Canyon Park at 33.5437°, 117.7325°. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during two to six storm events a year from 2002-2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the Orange County's NPDES Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
DECISION ID |
6545 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six of the 19 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. Six of 19 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria for toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21397 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were collected at Aliso Creek station 901SJALC6 from October 2002 to May 2003. The four samples showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the following tests: Selenastrum algae growth test: Three of the four samples. Ceriodaphnia dubia survival/reproductive test: Two of the four samples. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, all waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to SWAMP, waters are considered toxic when samples show significant toxicity levels (SWAMP code SL) when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5% and percent control values less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water toxicity samples were collected at Aliso Creek station 901SJALC6; (Latitude 31.5119, Longitude -117.7519). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on October 2002, January 2003, April 2003 and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 23504 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Selenastrum Algae Growth-
None of the 15 samples exhibited NOECs less than 100%. Ceriodaphnia dubia -Survival- Two of the 15 samples exhibited NOECs less than 100%. Ceriodaphnia dubia -Reproduction- Two of the 15 samples exhibited NOECs less than 100%. Fathead Minnow survival- None of the three samples exhibited NOECs less than 100%. Fathead Minnow growth- None of the three samples exhibited NOECs less than 100%. Hyalella azteca survival- None of the 15 samples exhibited LC50s less than 100% according to results in the Orange County Storm Water Annual Progress Report, 2007. Samples were collected from 2003-2005. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be sustain free from toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce harmful physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Samples were found to exhibit toxicity when the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or median lethal concentration (LC50) for any given species was estimated to be less than 100% of the test sample concentration and signficantly different than the control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport. Order No. R9-2007-0001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | There are three sampling locations along Aliso Creek. Sampling locations are Aliso/Woods Canyon Park, Country Club Road, and Pacific Park Dr. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2003-2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the toxicity portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the County of Orange's NPDES monitoring program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Orange County Stormwater Program. 2004-2007. Unified Annual Progress Reports, Program Effectiveness Assessment (San Diego Region) | ||||
DECISION ID |
5552 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 the 4 samples exceeded the CDFG Hazard Assessment criteria for the protection of Aquatic life and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2995 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples exceeded the CDFG Hazard Assessment criteria. (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination or pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment criteria for the protection of Aquatic life is as follows:
0.16 ug/L 1-hour average and 0.10 ug/L 4-day average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). |
||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken from one sample site at Aliso Creek: 33.51215 -117.75179 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6362 |
Region 9 |
Aliso Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Nonpoint Source | Point Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2005 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4440 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||