Water Body Name: | Bonita Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR8011100020080921204139 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
97935 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the thirty-seven (37) 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 thirty-seven (37) 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: | 81313 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 37 samples and composite samples exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
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 University Drive and MacArthur Boulevard. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected mostly monthly from July 2006 through June 2009 at MacArthur Boulevard. Samples were collected biannually October 2006 to September 2008 at University Drive. | ||||
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 |
97297 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 10 samples exceed 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 of the 10 samples exceed 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 16 samples is 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: | 81276 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
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 ten 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
97298 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 8 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 8 samples exceed the CRITERIA 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 is 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: | 81285 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
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 eight 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
73595 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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 of the 7 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 7 samples exceed the CRITERIA 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 is 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: | 25888 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the two samples collected, none exceeded the criteria. This data was compiled by the Department of Pesticide Regulations | ||||
Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region Basin Plan: 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 for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game 4 day average for the protection of aquatic life: 0.014 ug/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: | The samples were collected at one station in Bonita Creek | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 7/24/2001 and on 3/12/2002 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There is no information available on environmental conditions. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data's quality assurance is deemed acceptable because the data was compiled by the Department of Pesticide Regulations. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 81286 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of five samples exceed the continuous concentration (four day average) for chlorpyrifos in freshwater is 14.0 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: | 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 Bonita Creek, site BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 through 2008. | ||||
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 |
97299 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 13 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 13 samples exceed the CRITERIA 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 is 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: | 81288 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
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 thirteen 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 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
97936 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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. None 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. 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. None of the samples exceed the criteria 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 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: | 81289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
73557 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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 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 of the 6 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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 6 samples exceed the CRITERIA 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 is 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: | 25890 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | The one sample collected did not exceed the Department of Fish and Game's maximum concentration. This data came from the Department of Pesticide Regulations. | ||||
Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region Basin Plan: 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 for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | California Department of Fish and Game Maximum Concentration: 0.16 ug/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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. EPA-R3-73-033. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at one location in Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The one sample was collected on 3/12/2002. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There is no information available on environmental conditions. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data's quality assurance is deemed acceptable because the data was compiled by the Department of Pesticide Regulations. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 81290 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of five samples exceed 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 Bonita Creek, site BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 through 2008. | ||||
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 |
96526 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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: | 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.
Three (3) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of 0 samples exceed the E. coli Geomean Objective. Zero (0) of 0 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 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 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 3.2. 4. Zero (0) of the 0 samples exceed the E. coli Single Sample 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 3.2. 5. 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: | 81321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Tw0 of the two 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 Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in September 2007. | ||||
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: | 81299 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the two 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 Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in September 2007. | ||||
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: | 81298 | ||||
Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the two samples exceeded the entercoccus 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 Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in September 2007. | ||||
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 |
74315 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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. Zero (0) of the thirteen (13) 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 thirteen (13) 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: | 81300 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
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 thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
94735 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Malathion |
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 of the 7 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. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the 7 samples exceed the CRITERIA 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 is 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: | 25891 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the two samples collected, none exceeded the USEPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Instantaneous Maximum. The data came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region Basin Plan: 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 for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Instantaneous Max: 0.01 ug/l | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The two samples were taken at one location in Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 7/24/2001 and 3/12/2002 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | There is no information available on environmental conditions. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The data's quality assurance is deemed acceptable because the data was compiled by the Department of Pesticide Regulations. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 81301 | ||||
Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of five 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 Bonita Creek, site BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 2006 through 2008. | ||||
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 |
74316 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the five (5) 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 five (5) 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: | 81303 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
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 five samples exceeded the water quality objective for mercury. | ||||
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: | 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
78526 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the thirteen (13) 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 thirteen (13) 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. |
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: | 81312 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
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 thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
89306 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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 three (3) 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 in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of thirty-seven (37) samples exceed 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 thirty-seven (37) samples exceeded the 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: | 81314 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 37 averages 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 BCF04 station. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a month from July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97915 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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 thirteen (13) 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 thirteen (13) 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. |
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: | 81316 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
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 thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
95259 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 13 samples exceed 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. 0 of 13 samples exceed 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 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: | 81317 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
95156 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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 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 are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the thirty-seven (37) 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. One (1) of the thirty-seven (37) 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: | 81318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 37 averages of temperature had 1 exceedence. | ||||
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 BCF04 station. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a month between July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97916 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) of the thirteen (13) 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. One (1) of the thirteen (13) 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: | 81323 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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 |
89439 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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. Two (2) of thirty-seven (37) samples exceed 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. Two (2) of thirty-seven (37) samples exceeded the 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: | 81315 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 37 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 BCF04 station. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were approximately once a month from July 2006 to June 2009. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97710 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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: | 2029 |
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.
Three 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 toxicity to invertebrate test organisms in water samples. Two out of 13 samples exceed the CTR criteria continuous concentration (4-day average) in freshwater. 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: | 81322 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twelve samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the 12 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests that exhibited significant toxicity included reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and biomass of Hyallela, and Selenastrum. | ||||
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 at station BCF04-Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected approximately twice 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: | 81289 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the thirteen 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 Bonita Creek at station BCF04. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected intermittently from July 2006 until November 2008. | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 81277 | ||||
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: 2.86, fall 2007: 2.86, spring 2008: 2.86, fall 2008: 15.73. | ||||
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 BCF04, Bonita Creek at University Drive. | ||||
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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95116 |
Region 8 |
Bonita Creek |
||
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: | 2029 |
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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess toxicity. Three of the twelve 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. Three of the twelve 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: | 81322 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twelve samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Three of the 12 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests that exhibited significant toxicity included reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and biomass of Hyallela, and Selenastrum. | ||||
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 at station BCF04-Bonita Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected approximately twice 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): | |||||