| Water Body Name: | Peters Canyon Channel |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8011100020050602204221 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
77566 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Four (4) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of 0 samples exceed the E. coli Geomean Objective. Thirty-seven (37) of the 66 samples exceed the E. coli Single Sample Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removalof this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the 0 samples exceed the E. coli Geomean Objective, and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 5 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 4.2. 4. Thirty-seven (37) of the 66 samples exceed the E. coli Single Sample Objective, and this does exceed the frequency listed in table 4.2. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. USEPA 2012 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 Peters Canyon 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 of the 66 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml). 2. Thirty-seven of the 66 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: | 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: | USEPA 2012 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 Peters Canyon 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 of the 66 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml). 2. Thirty-seven of the 66 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. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82047 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 24 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-four of the twenty-six samples exceeded the enterococcus objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Santa Ana Region basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The single sample enterococcus concentration shall not exceed more than 61/100ml. Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82048 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the three geometric exceeded the enterococcus objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Santa Ana Region basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Geomean: The enterococcus concentration shall not exceed more than 33/100ml. Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| 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 by Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project, 40 exceeded USEPA's recommended single sample standard and 37 samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 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 | ||||
| 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 | |||||
| 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: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were taken from two locations Peters Canyon 1 and 2 (pc1 and pc2):
pc1 is Located in Irvine in upper Peter's Canyon Channel on Bryan Street between Jamboree Rd. and Culver Dr. pc2 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82056 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-one of the twenty-six samples exceeded the fecal colifrom objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The single sample fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100ml. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82057 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the three geometric means exceeded the fecal colifrom objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Geomean: The fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 200/100ml. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82052 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of the three geometric means exceeded the total coliform objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Santa Ana Region basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Geomean: The total coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 1000/100ml. Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82051 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fourteen of the twenty-six samples exceeded the total coliform objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Santa Ana Region basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The single sample total coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 10000/100ml. Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash, Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from October 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected and analyzed under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73794 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA 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 (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Forty-five (45) of the one hundred fifty-nine (159) 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 CWA 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-five (45) of the one hundred fifty-nine (159) samples exceeded the water quality objective 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82041 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 87 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 87 minimums and maximums of pH data had 2 exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of all inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the BARSED and BPF06 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately twice a month from July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: 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 |
98807 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | See TMDL documentation |
| TMDL Name: | Newport Bay Watershed Organochlorine Compounds TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 161 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 11/12/2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 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 pollutant. Three (3) of the fourteen (14) tissue samples exceed the NAS guideline. Zero out of the 1 sample exceed the PEC in sediment for total DDTs and zero out of the 1 sample exceeds the PEC for sum of DDT. 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 CWA 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. Three (3) of the fourteen (14) tissue samples exceed the NAS guideline 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| 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) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82035 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82053 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
72916 |
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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three (3) of the one-hundred thirty-five (135) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (3) of the one-hundred thirty-five (135) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| 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 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82038 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 69 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 69 averaged samples exceed the water quality objective. One detectable sample at 0.19 mg/L did not have corresponding temperature and pH data and was not counted. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Santa Ana Basin Plan 4-day chronic objective for unionized ammonia and corresponding total ammonia in waters supporting warm freshwater aquatic life is determined by an equation dependent on pH and temperature. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at stations BPF06 and BARSED which are both at Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from July 2006 through June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | A signed QAPP was included with the stated goal of ensuring the consistent collection of accurate water quality information that will used to satisfy the objectives of the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97962 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the fifty-five (55) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the fifty-five (55) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82116 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 55 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the samples exceeded the water quality objective for arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The CTR for arsenic is 150 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97963 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. One (1) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82121 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
97964 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82122 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98016 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82123 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 samples collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 801SUP065 (Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98017 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the fifty-four (49) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the fifty-four (49) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82124 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data method detection limit was above the guideline and therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no chlorpyrifos evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: the freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82027 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 49 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 49 samples exceed the continuous concentration (four day average) for chlorpyrifos in freshwater is 14.0 ng/L. However 13 samples had a reporting limit greater than 14 ng/L rendering them unusable fore assessment purposes. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Criteria Continuous Concentration (four day average) for chlorpyrifos in freshwater is 14.0 ng/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at sites: BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 to 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were submitted with the County of Orange Stormwater Program Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) dated January 2010. The Regional Water Board has determined that equivalent QA/QC documentation exists within the Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Orange County MS4 permit and appendix C-11- X of the 2008-09 monitoring report. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
DECISION ID |
73599 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82028 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97918 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. One (1) of the samples exceed the criteria. 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 CWA 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. One (1) of the samples exceed the criteria 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82029 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97970 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82030 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
97971 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82031 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
97972 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82032 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
97973 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82033 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98026 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82034 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98027 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82036 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98028 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the sixty-eight (68) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. One (1) of the sixty-eight (68) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82043 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no diazinon evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: the freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82044 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 67 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 67 samples exceeded the continuous concentration for Diazinon criteria of 50.0 ng/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment criteria for the protection of Aquatic life is as follows: 50.0 ng/L Continuous Concentration for diazinon in freshwater. (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at sites: BARSED and BPF06 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 through 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were submitted with the County of Orange Stormwater Program Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) dated January 2010. However, data were collected prior to the development of this QAMP, therefore the quality of these data are unknown. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98029 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82045 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98079 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82046 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98080 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82055 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98081 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82058 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98082 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82059 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data method detection limit was above the guideline and therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.13 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98136 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82060 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data method detection limit was above the guideline and therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfide is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.16 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98137 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the zero (0) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82064 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The single sample collected was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data method detection limit was above the guideline and therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfone is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.12 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98138 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Four (4) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (4) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceeded the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82065 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98139 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82066 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98199 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the twenty-seven (27) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the twenty-seven (27) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82068 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 27 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 27 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for mercury. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations (4-day average concentrations) for freshwater aquatic organisms exposure to elemental mercury is 0.77 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were intermittently collected from September 2006 until January 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Approximately 40% of the samples were collected after storm events. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98569 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82037 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90576 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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 to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the eighty-four (84) 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the eighty-four (84) samples exceed the water quality 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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82039 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 84 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 84 minimums of Dissolved Oxygen concentrations had no exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as "Warm Freshwater Habitat" must be greater than 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the BARSED and BPF06 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a week from July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98197 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) samples exceeds the beneficial use criterion and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82040 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Peters Canyon Channel to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Region (SARWQCB 2008): The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Peters Canyon Channel was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Peter's Canyon Wash @ Warner station (801SUP065).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
98257 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Silver |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82049 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for silver. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion maximum concentrations for silver to protect aquatic life in freshwater (1-hour average). The disolved silver criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77002 |
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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| 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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two (2) of the one hundred fifty-five (155) 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 the one hundred fifty-five (155) samples exceed the water quality 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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82050 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 87 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 87 averages of temperature had 2 exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | At no time shall warm freshwater habitat-designated waters be raised above 80 degrees Fahrenheit as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the BARSED and BPF06 stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately twice a month from July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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: 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 |
98258 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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 (0) of the seventy-two (72) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82063 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97030 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutant(s) is necessary to assess listing status.
Nine lines of evidence are available. Five of the 5 benthic invertebrate samples exceed (fall below) the Southern California IBI threshold for poor community composition. This water segment is also on the CWA section 303(d) List for copper, DDT, malathion, selenium, toxaphene, and toxicity to invertebrate test organisms in water and sediment samples. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence provides sufficient justification for placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment on the CWA 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. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water segment exhibits significant degradation in biological populations and/or communities as compared to reference site(s) using the SoCal IBI. 4. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water segment has associated pollutant(s) samples that exceed water quality objectives. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are being met. The California Stream Condition Index is a new scoring tool for bioassessment data that is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI has been used in some assessments this reporting cycle and will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). If CSCI scores have not be calculated for data and only IBI scores are available, IBI scores will still be used to interpret the data. CSCI scores representing min and max scores for this site were submitted by OCPW during our comment period. The CSCI scores do not change the listing decision and the IBI LOEs will be retired when the CSCI LOEs are written. |
| 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence provides sufficient justification for placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The California Stream Condition Index is a new scoring tool for bioassessment data that is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI has been used in some assessments this reporting cycle and will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). If CSCI scores have not be calculated for data and only IBI scores are available, IBI scores will still be used to interpret the data.
CSCI scores representing min and max scores for this site were submitted by OCPW during our comment period. The CSCI scores do not change the listing decision and the IBI LOEs will be retired when the CSCI LOEs are written. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82062 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 801SUP065 (Peter's Canyon Wash at Warner). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in January 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82061 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Five of the thirteen samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyallela. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. Exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. June 1994. EPA 600/R-94/025 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected in Peters Canyon Wash. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from approximately three times a year from 2006 to 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data collected under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. The SWAMP measurement quality objectives were followed for toxicity data. The performance of toxicity bioassays and evaluation of reference toxicants were performed using USEPA and Standard Methods. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82054 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-nine samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Eightof the 29 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Fathead, Hyallela, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Purple Urchin development. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. Exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected in Peters Canyon Wash. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 2006 to March 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data collected under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. The SWAMP measurement quality objectives were followed for toxicity data. The performance of toxicity bioassays and evaluation of reference toxicants were performed using USEPA and Standard Methods. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82120 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five out of the five samples collected had IBI scores below 40. The scores were, fall 2006: 4.29, spring 2007: 1.43, fall 2007: 5.71, spring 2008: 7.15, fall 2008: 2.86. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked. For the Southern California IBI, sites with scores below 40 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
| 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 station BPF06, Peters Canyon Wash near Barranca Parkway. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in the fall 2006, and the spring and fall of 2007 and 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The taxonomic analysis followed the guidelines of the Southern California Freshwater and Marine Invertebrate Taxonomic Associations (SAFIT, SCAMIT). All stream bioassessment sample collection and taxonomic analysis follow the Southern California Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Bioassessment Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82042 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 71 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 66 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixty-six of the 71 samples exceeded the water quality objective for selenium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The CTR for selenium is 5.0 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| 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) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82029 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 72 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten of the 72 samples exceeded the water quality objective for copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The disolved criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. If no hardness data were available, a value of 100 mg/L was used. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| 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) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82067 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 67 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of sixty seven samples exceed the maximum (Instantaneous) concentration for Malathion in freshwater of 100 ng/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The maximum (Instantaneous) concentration for Malathion in freshwater is 100 ng/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at sites: BARSED and BPF06 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 to 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were submitted with the County of Orange Stormwater Program Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) dated January 2010. However, data were collected prior to the development of this QAMP, therefore the quality of these data are unknown. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98198 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Malathion |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Six (6) of the sixty-seven (67) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Six (6) of the sixty-seven (67) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82067 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 67 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of sixty seven samples exceed the maximum (Instantaneous) concentration for Malathion in freshwater of 100 ng/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The maximum (Instantaneous) concentration for Malathion in freshwater is 100 ng/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water. USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials. Washington, D.C | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at sites: BARSED and BPF06 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 to 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data were submitted with the County of Orange Stormwater Program Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP) dated January 2010. However, data were collected prior to the development of this QAMP, therefore the quality of these data are unknown. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98256 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. Sixty-six (66) of the seventy-one (71) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion. 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 CWA 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. Sixty-six (66) of the seventy-one (71) samples exceed the beneficial use criterion 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82042 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 71 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 66 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Sixty-six of the 71 samples exceeded the water quality objective for selenium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations (4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The CTR for selenium is 5.0 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Peters Canyon Wash at stations BARSED and BPF06. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently at station BARSED from July 2006 until June 2009 and from station BPF06 in 2006 & 2007 once in October and once in May. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with the signed and certified, Quality Assurance Management Plan for the Orange County Stormwater Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97008 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status for toxicity, and waters may be placed on the CWA section 303(d) List for toxicity alone.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six out of 14 samples exhibited sediment toxicity. Eight out of 29 samples exhibited water toxicity. 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 CWA 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. Six out of 14 samples exhibited sediment toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Eight out of 29 samples exhibited water 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82054 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-nine samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Eightof the 29 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Fathead, Hyallela, Ceriodaphnia dubia and Purple Urchin development. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. Exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected in Peters Canyon Wash. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from June 2006 to March 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data collected under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. The SWAMP measurement quality objectives were followed for toxicity data. The performance of toxicity bioassays and evaluation of reference toxicants were performed using USEPA and Standard Methods. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82061 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen samples were collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. Five of the thirteen samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival of Hyallela. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Waterbodies in Region 8 and Region 9, 2006-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. Exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. June 1994. EPA 600/R-94/025 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected in Peters Canyon Wash. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from approximately three times a year from 2006 to 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data collected under the Quality Assurance Management Plan for The Orange County Stormwater Program. The SWAMP measurement quality objectives were followed for toxicity data. The performance of toxicity bioassays and evaluation of reference toxicants were performed using USEPA and Standard Methods. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 82062 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 801SUP065 (Peter's Canyon Wash at Warner). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in January 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68189 |
Region 8 |
Peters Canyon Channel |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | See TMDL documentation |
| TMDL Name: | Newport Bay Watershed Organochlorine Compounds TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 161 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 11/12/2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant was placed on the section 303(d) list in a previous assessment cycle. No new information was reviewed for the current assessment cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged; however, a TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and the approved implementation plan is expected to result in full attainment of the standard within a specified time frame. The previous conclusion is as follows:
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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. 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. |
|
|||||
| 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) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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): | |||||