| Water Body Name: | Bolsa Chica Channel |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8011100020080921212001 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
16835 |
Region 8 |
Bolsa Chica Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| 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 are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six 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. Six of 69 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. |
| 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28935 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 69 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 69 samples collected, 6 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. From Bolsa Chica Channel 1: 0 out of 11 were between June and October and 2 out of 24 were from November and May. From Bolsa Chica Channel 2: 0 out of 10 were between June and October and 4 out of 24 were between November and May. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for natural receiving water are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan. The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of waters designated WARM shall not be raised above 90°F June through October or above 78°F during the rest of the year as a result of controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at two stations: Bolsa Chica Channel 1 and Bolsa Chica Channel 2 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly starting on 3/17/2004 through 3/30/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12579 |
Region 8 |
Bolsa Chica Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Other Urban Runoff | Storm sewers | Surface Runoff | Unknown Nonpoint Source |
| 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 (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eight (8) 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. Eight (8) of sixty-five (65) samples exceed the Basin Plan's Objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. This water body does not currently have an aquatic life beneficial use designation in the Basin Plan. 5. Pictures showing that an aquatic life use designation exists in this water body are available. 6. 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 the available data and information, SWRCB 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. |
| 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: | 8494 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 65 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 65 samples collected, eight exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. Three of these exceedances occurred in the Channel 1 sampling station and five of them occurred in the Channel 2 sampling station. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Objective: The objective varies according to the temperature of the water being sampled and ranged during the sampling period as follows: 0.13 mg/l - 0.51 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at two stations in the Bolsa Chica Channel: Channel 1 (bc1) and Channel 2 (bc2) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/17/2004 through 3/30/2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12574 |
Region 8 |
Bolsa Chica Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | USEPA Final Approval Decision Details:
The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: USEPA added Bolsa Chica Channel to the list of water quality limited segments requiring a TMDL for indicator bacteria. This water body is designated as a Water Contact Recreation (REC1) water body either explicitly or implicitly as tributaries to other designated segments (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, Table 3-1, pp.3-23 - 3-35). The Santa Ana Basin Plan has the following water quality objective for fecal coliform to protect REC1 beneficial use: Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9) Recent monitoring data collected in this water body measures Escherichia coli (E. coli) indicator bacteria. E. coli is one species within the broader category of fecal coliform bacteria and monitoring data for E. coli can be used to evaluate whether the fecal coliform objective is being met in the subject water body. In addition, USEPA has recommended that California use USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) when there is no adopted E. coli standard. Specifically, USEPA recommends that for REC1 beneficial use the following criteria be used: Steady state geometric mean indicator density - 126 indicator densities/100ml Designated beach area (upper 75% confidence limit) - 235 indicator densities/100ml (EPA, 1986, Table 4, pp.15) USEPA compared the E. coli data for this water body to the Basin Plan's fecal coliform objective, as well as to USEPA's recommended E. coli criteria and the results were: 1. Forty-nine of the 63 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml). 2. Forty-two of the 43 samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan objective for fecal coliform (400 organisms/100ml). For this water body segment, sufficient exceedances of the fecal coliform objective and the USEPA recommended criteria exist to merit listings per the 10% exceedance threshold for conventional pollutants expressed in Table 3.2 of the State Listing Policy. For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision. Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Regional Water Board Decision Recommendation (prior to State Water Board approval):
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Forty-eight of 65 samples exceeded the EPA's single sample value of 236. While the frequency of measurements above this single sample value would warrant listing pursuant to the Listing Policy (Table 3.2), listing on the bases of these data is not appropriate at this time, based on the following: (1). The samples were collected on a monthly basis; insufficient samples were collected to derive geomeans. EPA has made clear in relevant guidance and regulation on EPA's bacteria criteria (e.g., Section IV B 3 of 40 CFR Part 131 (Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule) that the geometric mean is the more relevant value for ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to protect and improve water quality because it is a more reliable measure, being subject to less random variation and more directly linked to the underlying studies on which the 1986 bacteria criteria were based. EPA has consistently stated that the single sample standard is best used in making beach notifications and closure decisions. (2). The single sample value of 236 employed for comparative purposes is inappropriate since it is based on inappropriate assumptions regarding data variability and the intensity of recreational use at the sites (there are not designated beach areas). The value of 236 is derived based on the assumptions that (1) the log standard deviation of measured E. coli concentrations is 0.4 (essentially a default value that is assumed in the absence of adequate data/analysis), and (2) that the 75th percentile value should be selected to protect designated beach areas. EPA recommends that this percentile value be used for designated beach areas where a higher level of confidence is needed to assure that the geomean is being met. (As described in detail by EPA, single sample maximum values are statistical constructs designed to provide the assurance that geomean objectives are met. Greater confidence is needed where recreational use, and the threat of exposure, is highest; where there is limited recreational use, lower confidence is needed that the geomean is achieved.) However, the waters at issue here are not designated beach areas and receive little recreational use. Further, data variability is higher than the default value of 0.4. As a result, the applicable single sample value for comparative assessment purposes is not 236, but a higher value (which should be determined through a standards setting process; the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force is engaged in this effort right now. 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. Forty-eight of 65 samples exceeded the Ocean Plan's single sample standard and this standard is not appropriate on which to base listing decisions. The geometric mean standard is the appropriate standard on which to base listing decisions. The data available consists of monthly samples and geometric means can not be calculated. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision.
Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | State Water Board Decision Recommendation (prior to USEPA approval):
The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli based on the following: As a result of State Board staff review State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB Decision to Do Not List the water body-pollutant combination. Listing Policy section 6.1 requires all readily available data and information shall be evaluated. In the absence of geometric mean information single sample data will be assessed. State Water Board staff agreed with the assessment contained in the associated LOE developed by Regional Board which is based on, water quality criteria of 235 MPN per 100ml (REC-1). It is State Water Boards position that based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in support 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. Forty-eight of 65 samples exceeded the single sample water quality objective for E. coli in fresh water 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. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body - pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the staff recommendation and decided to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. After review of this Regional Board decision, the State Water Board recommends that this 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 being exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA identified this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21462 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 63 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 49 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 63 samples taken by Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project, 49 exceeded USEPA's recommended single sample standard and 42 samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| USEPA Partial Approval Disapproval Letter and enclosures for California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
| USEPA Final Decision Letter with enclosures and responsiveness summary regarding waters added to California's 2008-2010 303(d) List | |||||
| USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of indicator bacteria to California 2010 303(d) list for some Santa Ana River - Region 8 water bodies | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL.
Santa Ana Region Basin Plan objective for Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9) |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at two stations in the Bolsa Chica Channel sites 1 and 2 (bc1 and bc2):
bc1 is Located in Cypress in the upper Bolsa Chica Channel at Warland Street Bridge bc2 is located in Huntington Beach in the lower Bolsa Chica Channel at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Blvd. and Rancho Rd. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly starting with March 31, 2004 through March 30, 2006. | ||||
| 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
12603 |
Region 8 |
Bolsa Chica Channel |
||
| 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: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen (14) 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. Fourteen (14) of Seventy four (74) 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. State Board Review and Conclusion: An incorrect determination was made by the Regional Board staff on the number of exceedances allowed when there are 74 samples using Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. State Board staff re-evaluated the existing data with the correct application of Table 3.2 and the recommendation has been revised to list for pH as follows: One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen 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. Fourteen of seventy-four samples exceeded 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. |
| 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 following changes to the decision:
The water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| 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: | 21438 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 74 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 74 samples taken 14 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. Four of these exceedances occurred in the Channel 1 sampling station and ten of them occurred in the Channel 2 sampling station. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Objective: The ph of inland surface waters shall not be raised above 8.5 pH units or depressed below 6.5 pH units as a result of controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at two stations in the Bolsa Chica Channel: Channel 1 (bc1) and Channel 2 (bc2). Channel 1 is Located in Cypress in the Upper Bolsa Chica Channel at Warland street bridge.
Channel 2 is located in Huntington Beach in the Lower Bolsa Chica channel at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Blvd. and Rancho Rd. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/17/2004 through 3/30/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||