| Water Body Name: | Newport Bay, Lower (Turning Basin and South Lido Channel to east end of H-J Moorings) |
| Water Body ID: | CAB8011400020081201010123 |
| Water Body Type: | Bay & Harbor |
DECISION ID |
77912 |
Region 8 |
Newport Bay, Lower (Turning Basin and South Lido Channel to east end of H-J Moorings) |
||
| 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: | No new data were assessed this cycle. The decision has not changed, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Fourteen of the copper samples, exceed the sediment quality guidelines. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of the copper samples, 48 samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, it is more appropriate to assess this beneficial use by using the sediment quality objective that the State Board has approved and that is pending EPA approval. At this time, there is not enough data to use the sediment quality objectives and the municipal storm water permit for Orange County will be amended to require additional analytes in the monitoring program that will allow for a complete analyses of the data using the sediment quality objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. State Board Review and Comments State Water Board staff, after review, concurs with RWQCB decision against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. However, staff does not concur with all the reasons contained in the Regional Board Weight of Evidence. Placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy requires data on toxicants in water. One line of evidence for sediment is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, one line of evidence is required to assess toxicity in sediment. There is insufficient information if the pollutant in sediment is causing sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 48 samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, there is no evidence that sediment toxicity is present in the water body. 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: | 26280 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Chemical monitoring of sediments | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples collected, 14 exceeded the ERM guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data files for Lower Newport Bay Copper/Metals Marina Study | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Narrative Water Quality Objective: The concentration of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Effects Range Median for copper is 270 ug/g dry weight | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Bahia, Harbor, Lido Yacht, H&J Mooring and Balboa Yacht Basin | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in May, August and December 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the Quality Assurance Plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77508 |
Region 8 |
Newport Bay, Lower (Turning Basin and South Lido Channel to east end of H-J Moorings) |
||
| 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: | No new data were assessed this cycle. The decision has not changed, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-two samples of the mercury samples exceed the sediment quality guidelines. 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. Twenty-two of the mercury samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, it is more appropriate to assess this beneficial use by using the sediment quality objective that the State Board has approved and that is pending EPA approval. At this time, there is not enough data to use the sediment quality objectives and the municipal storm water permit for Orange County will be amended to require additional analytes in the monitoring program that will allow for a complete analyses of the data using the sediment quality objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. State Board Review and Comments State Water Board staff, after review, concurs with RWQCB Decision to Do Not List the water body-pollutant combination. However, staff does not concur with all the reasons contained in the Regional Board Weight of Evidence. Placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy requires data on toxicants in water. One line of evidence for sediment is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, one line of evidence is required to assess pollutants in sediment. There is insufficient information if the pollutant in sediment are causing sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 48 samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, there is no evidence that sediment toxicity is present in the water body. 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 cycle. 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: | 26291 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 22 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Chemical monitoring of sediments | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples collected, 22 exceeded the ERM guideline | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data files for Lower Newport Bay Copper/Metals Marina Study | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Narrative Water Quality Objective: The concentration of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | ERM Mercury - 0.71 ug/g | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Bahia, Harbor, Lido Yacht, H&J Mooring adn Balboa Yacht Basin | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in May, August and December 2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the Quality Assurance Plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
99240 |
Region 8 |
Newport Bay, Lower (Turning Basin and South Lido Channel to east end of H-J Moorings) |
||
| 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: | No new data were assessed this cycle. The decision has not changed, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twelve of the zinc samples, exceed the sediment quality guidelines. 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. Twelve of the zinc samples, 48 samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this does exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, it is more appropriate to assess this beneficial use by using the sediment quality objective that the State Board has approved and that is pending EPA approval. At this time, there is not enough data to use the sediment quality objectives and the municipal storm water permit for Orange County will be amended to require additional analytes in the monitoring program that will allow for a complete analyses of the data using the sediment quality objective. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. State Board Review and Comments State Water Board staff, after review, concurs with RWQCB Decision to Do Not List the water body-pollutant combination. However, staff does not concur with all the reasons contained in the Regional Board Weight of Evidence. Placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy requires data on toxicants in water. One line of evidence for sediment is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, one line of evidence is required to assess pollutants in sediment. There is insufficient information if the pollutant in sediment are causing sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Fourteen of 48 samples exceeded the sediment quality guidelines and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. However, there is no evidence that sediment toxicity is present in the water body. 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 cycle. 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: | 26289 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Chemical monitoring of sediments | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples collected 12 exceeded the ERM guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data files for Lower Newport Bay Copper/Metals Marina Study | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Narrative Water Quality Objective: The concentration of toxic substances in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Effects Range Median for zinc is 410 ug/g dry weight | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Bahia, Harbor, Lido Yacht, H&J Mooring adn BYB | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in May, August and December 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The samples were collected under the Quality Assurance Plan approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||