| Water Body Name: | Santa Ana River, Reach 1 |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8011100019991014112418 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
154004 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. One line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of one benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody 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. One of one benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 314236 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 801M12625 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.39339425 to 0.39339425. | ||||
| Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 8. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Inland surface water communities and populations, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, shall not be degraded as a result of the discharge of waste. Degradation is damage to an aquatic community or population with the result that balanced community no longer exists. 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 California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from station 801M12625. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 7/1/2015 to 7/1/2015. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
77837 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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 presented in "Decision Relationships Continued".
From 2010 Listing Cycle: From 2010 Listing Cycle: 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record (one line of evidence for body contact and one line of evidence for non body contact recreation) to assess this pollutant. Two hundred and four of the samples exceed the water quality objective for the body contact recreation beneficial use and 56 exceed the objective for the non body contact recreation beneficial use. 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 hundred and four of 1,516 samples exceeded the water quality objective consisting of the logmean and the single sample standard for the body contact recreation and 56 of 1,516 samples exceed the objective consisting of the average and single sample standard 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: | 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: | From 2010 Listing Cycle:
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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record (one line of evidence for body contact and one line of evidence for non body contact recreation) to assess this pollutant. Two hundred and four of the samples exceed the water quality objective for the body contact recreation beneficial use and 56 exceed the objective for the non body contact recreation beneficial use. 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 hundred and four of 1,516 samples exceeded the water quality objective consisting of the logmean and the single sample standard for the body contact recreation and 56 of 1,516 samples exceed the objective consisting of the average and single sample standard and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30535 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1516 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 204 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 1516 samples collected, 204 exceeded the Basin Plan criteria. This data was obtained from the Orange County Health Care Agency. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Bacteria data for Orange County beaches downloaded from Orange County Health Care website. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | as stated in Basin Plan: Fecal coliform log mean less than 200 organisms per 100 ml based on 5 or more samples per 30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms perm 100 ml for any 30 day period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. California Ocean Plan 2005. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The 1,516 samples were collected at the Santa Ana River- South station of Reach 1 of the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The 1516 samples were collected weekly from Sept 25 2002 through December 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The data spanned 6 entire years including wet and dry seasons. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data¿s quality is deemed appropriate because it was collected by the Orange County Environmental Health Agency . | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30549 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1516 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 56 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 1,516 samples collected, 56 exceeded the Basin Plan criteria. This data was obtained from the Orange County Health Care Agency. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Bacteria data for Orange County beaches downloaded from Orange County Health Care website. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Average less than 2000 organisms per 100 ml and not more than 10% of samples exceed 4,000 organisms per 100 ml for any 30-day period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. California Ocean Plan 2005. Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board, California Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The 1,516 samples were collected at the Santa Ana River- South station of Reach 1 of the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The 1516 samples were collected weekly from Sept 25 2002 through December 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The data spanned 6 entire years including wet and dry seasons. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data¿s quality is deemed appropriate because it was collected by the Orange County Environmental Health Agency . | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90644 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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 three (3) of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess the listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of one (1) sample exceeds the 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 one (1) sample exceeds the 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 26 samples are needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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: | 82378 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 1 sample of pH data had no exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for bacteria in various waterbodies, Feb. 2005-May 2007 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of bay or estuary waters shall not be raised above 8.6 or depressed below 7.0 as a result of controllable water quality factors... | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Santa Ana River Mouth station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 5/5/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||