Draft California 2010 Integrated Report( 303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 8 - Santa Ana Region

Water Body Name: Peters Canyon Channel
Water Body ID: CAR8011100020050602204221
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
13119
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: Ammonia (Unionized)
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
 
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) lines 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 sixty-six (66) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective 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.
 
RWQCB Board 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 Staff 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 Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13119, Ammonia (Unionized)
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 8515
 
Pollutant: Ammonia (Unionized)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 66
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 66 samples collected, two exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. One of the exceedances occurred in Peter's Canyon at station pc1 and the other occurred at station pc2
Data Reference: Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Basin Plan Objective: The objective varies according to the temperature of the water being sampled; the objective ranged during the sampling period as follows: 0.10 mg/l - 0.24 mg/l
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan-Santa Ana Region
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at two stations in the Peter's Canyon Channel: pc1 and pc2
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/9/2004 through 3/29/2006
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
16850
Region 8     
Peters Canyon 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
 
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. Zero 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. Zero of Sixty eight 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 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 Staff 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 Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 16850, Temperature, water
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 28938
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 68
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 68 samples collected, 0 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective.
Data Reference: Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project
 
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-Santa Ana Region
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at two stations: Peter's Canyon Channel 1, Peter's Canyon Channel 2
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected monthly starting on 3/9/2004 through 3/29/2006.
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
13113
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Conclusion: Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. Forty of 66 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 of 66 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.

State Board Review and Conclusion:
As a result of State Board staff review State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB Decision to not place this water body-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. 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 used 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). The Listing Policy shall not be used to revise water quality objectives. Section 1 of the Listing Policy states that “the Policy shall not be used to establish, revise, or refine any water quality objectives or beneficial uses.”

It is State Water Board staff's 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 of 66 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.
 
RWQCB Board 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 Staff Recommendation: SWRCB staff does not concur with the RWQCB 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 Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13113, Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 21468
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 66
Number of Exceedances: 40
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 66 samples taken, 40 samples exceeded EPA's Recommended single sample standard. The exceedances took place at two locations: Pc1 and Pc2.
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 single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were taken from two locations: Pc1 and Pc2. Peters Canyon 1 is Located in Irvine in upper Peter’s Canyon Channel on Bryan Street between Jamboree Rd. and Culver Dr.
Peters Canyon 2 is Located In Irvine in lower Peter’s Canyon Channel on Barranca Pkwy between Jamboree Rd. and Harvard Av.
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken monthly starting on March 9, 2004 through March 29, 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
13116
Region 8     
Peters Canyon 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: Unknown Nonpoint Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
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. Forty-three (43) 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. Forty-three (43) of seventy-two (72) 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 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 Staff 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 Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 13116, pH
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 21445
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 72
Number of Exceedances: 43
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 72 samples collected 43 exceeded the Basin Plan's Objective.
Data Reference: Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project
 
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-Santa Ana Region
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at two stations: Peter's Canyon 1 and Peter's Canyon 2. Peters Canyon 1 is Located in Irvine in upper Peter’s Canyon Channel on Bryan St. between Jamboree Rd. and Culver Dr.
Peter's Canyon 2 is Located In Irvine in lower Peter’s Canyon Channel on Barranca Pkwy between Jamboree Rd. and Harvard Av.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected monthly starting on March 9, 2004 through March 29, 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
5338
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. 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 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 14 samples exceeded the NAS Guideline 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.
 
RWQCB Board Staff Recommendation: No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.
 
SWRCB Board Staff Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5338, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 2986
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 14
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three out of 14 samples exceeded the guideline. A total of 13 whole fish composite samples of red shiner and one whole fish composite of flathead minnow were collected. Red shiner samples were collected in 1992-2002. Flathead minnow sample was collected in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in 1992-93 and 1998 samples of red shiner (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Santa Ana River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline: 1000 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)] (NAS, 1972).
Guideline Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Spatial Representation: One station located upstream from Irvine Center Parkway Bridge.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected annually from 1992-2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
5339
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
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: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2019
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. 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 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. Nine of the 14 samples exceeded the NAS Guideline 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.
 
RWQCB Board Staff Recommendation: No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed.
 
SWRCB Board Staff Recommendation: After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board.
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 5339, Toxaphene
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 2987
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 14
Number of Exceedances: 9
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Nine out of 14 samples exceeded. A total of 13 whole fish composite samples of red shiner and one whole fish composite of fathead minnow were collected. Red shiner samples were collected in 1992-2002. Flathead minnow sample was collected in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in 1992-98 samples of red shiner. Samples from 1999-2002 did not exceed the guideline (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Santa Ana River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline: 100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)] (NAS, 1972).
Guideline Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Spatial Representation: One station located upstream from Irvine Center Parkway Bridge.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected annually from 1992-2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):