Pollutant: |
Ammonia |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Arsenic |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Chromium, hexavalent |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Fluoranthene |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140799, Fluoranthene
|
Region 4 |
San Clemente Island Nearshore |
|
|
LOE ID: |
261895 |
|
Pollutant: |
Fluoranthene |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
|
Number of Samples: |
2 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Discharge Monitoring data for San Clemente Island Nearshore to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fluoranthene. |
Data Reference: |
Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California's Ocean Plan, Table 3 lists the 30-day average concentration of 15 ug/L for fluoranthene to protect human health in marine waters. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 406NALF_SCI_REC1 (San Clemente Island Receiving). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-02-19 and 2014-02-27 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Assessing Natural Water Quality In
Areas Of Special Biological Significance |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140799, Fluoranthene
|
Region 4 |
San Clemente Island Nearshore |
|
|
LOE ID: |
261610 |
|
Pollutant: |
Fluoranthene |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Shellfish Harvesting |
|
Number of Samples: |
2 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Discharge Monitoring data for San Clemente Island Nearshore to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fluoranthene. |
Data Reference: |
Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California's Ocean Plan, Table 3 lists the 30-day average concentration of 15 ug/L for fluoranthene to protect human health in marine waters. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 406NALF_SCI_REC1 (San Clemente Island Receiving). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2013-02-19 and 2014-02-27 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Assessing Natural Water Quality In
Areas Of Special Biological Significance |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150133, Mercury
|
Region 4 |
San Clemente Island Nearshore |
|
|
LOE ID: |
263414 |
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Marine Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
2 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Discharge Monitoring data for San Clemente Island Nearshore to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Mercury. Although a total of 4 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California's Ocean Plan, Table 3 lists the 6-month median concentration of 0.04 ug/L for total mercury to protect aquatic life in marine waters. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (406NALF_SCI_REC1). |
Temporal Representation: |
Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-01-25 to 2014-02-27 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Assessing Natural Water Quality In
Areas Of Special Biological Significance |
|
Pollutant: |
Nickel |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150135, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
|
Region 4 |
San Clemente Island Nearshore |
|
|
LOE ID: |
267950 |
|
Pollutant: |
PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
|
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 ASBS Regional Discharge Monitoring data for San Clemente Island Nearshore to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total PAHs. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California's Ocean Plan, Table 3 lists the 30-day average concentration of 0.0088 ug/L for PAHs to protect human health in marine waters. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (406NALF_SCI_REC1). |
Temporal Representation: |
Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-01-25 to 2014-02-27 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Assessing Natural Water Quality In
Areas Of Special Biological Significance |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150135, PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
|
Region 4 |
San Clemente Island Nearshore |
|
|
LOE ID: |
267971 |
|
Pollutant: |
PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Shellfish Harvesting |
|
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 ASBS Regional Discharge Monitoring data for San Clemente Island Nearshore to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Total PAHs. Although a total of 3 samples were collected, 2 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. |
Data Reference: |
Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. |
|
SWAMP Data: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California's Ocean Plan, Table 3 lists the 30-day average concentration of 0.0088 ug/L for PAHs to protect human health in marine waters. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site (406NALF_SCI_REC1). |
Temporal Representation: |
Data for this waterbody was collected over the date range 2013-01-25 to 2014-02-27 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
Assessing Natural Water Quality In
Areas Of Special Biological Significance |
|
Pollutant: |
Selenium |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Silver |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
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: |
Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
|
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|