Water Body Name: | Prima Deshecha Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR9013000020010924090843 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
5853 |
Region 9 |
Prima Deshecha Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fifty of samples exceeded the water quality objective for total phosphorus. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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. Fifty of 59 samples exceeded the total phoshorus water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 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 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: | 3011 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 46 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Orange County in 1997-2000. Forty-six of 54 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters - streams and other flowing waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L. This appears to be the desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters; not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Use 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. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Prima Deshecha Creek. Exact location was not reported. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 1-5 times per month from 07/02/1997 to 06/29/2000. At least 4 months per year were represented. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 7742 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of five flow-weighted event mean concentrations exceeded the water quality objective according to results in the Orange County Stormwater Annual Progress Reports from 2002 through 2006. Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 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.
The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9) goal is 0.1 mg/L for phosphorus in streams and other flowing waters (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | 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 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Prima Deschecha Creek at 33.44679°, 117.64448°. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
17604 |
Region 9 |
Prima Deshecha Creek |
||
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 |
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. Four of the five samples exceed the Basin Plan 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 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. Four of the five samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for total nitrogen as N 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. |
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: | 7743 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of five flow-weighted event mean concentrations exceeded the water quality objective according to results in the Orange County Stormwater Annual Progress Report from 2002 through 2006. Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 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 Prima Deschecha Creek at 33.44679°, 117.64448°. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
16974 |
Region 9 |
Prima Deshecha Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
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 | Unknown Point 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. Eight of the samples exceed the water quality objective for cadmium. 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. All eight samples exceed the cadmium water quality objective 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: | 7739 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three out of eight samples collected exceed the hardness adjusted Criterion Maximum Concentration for dissolved cadmium. All eight of the samples collected exceed hardness adjusted Criterion Continuous Concentration for dissolved cadmium according to results in the Orange County Stormwater Progress Reports 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: | From the CTR, the dissolved cadmium Criterion Continuous Concentration is 2.2 ppb and the Criterion Maximum Concentration is 4.3 ppb, but these criteria may vary depending upon hardness of the sample (U.S. EPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Prima Deschecha Creek at 33.44679°, 117.64448°. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during Wet Weather. | ||||
QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
16975 |
Region 9 |
Prima Deshecha Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
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 | Unknown Point 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 samples exceed the water quality objective for nickel. 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 eight samples exceed the nickel water quality objective 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: | 7740 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three out of eight samples collected exceed the hardness adjusted Criterion Continuous Concentration for dissolved nickel according to results in the Orange County Stormwater Annual Progress Reports from 2002 through 2006. Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 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: | From the CTR, the dissolved nickel Criterion Continuous Concentration is 52 ppb and the Criterion Maximum Concentration is 470 ppb, but these criteria vary depending upon hardness of the sample (U.S. EPA, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the mass loading station in Prima Deschecha Creek at 33.44679°, 117.64448°. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from December 2002 through March 2006. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather. | ||||
QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
5834 |
Region 9 |
Prima Deshecha Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point 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 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess delisting status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Forty of 54 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. Forty of 54 samples were in exceedance of the turbidity water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
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: | 3010 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 54 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 40 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Orange County from 1997-2000. Forty of 54 samples were in exceedance. Turbidity concentrations ranged from 4.0 to 5400. There was no note of weather events to correspond with changing turbidity levels. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for turbidity is 20 NTU. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Prima Deshecha Channel. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 1-5 times per month from 07/02/1997 to 06/29/2000. Data was reported for at least four months of each year. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||