| Water Body Name: | Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8012100019990211140353 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
13242 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Alachlor | Atrazine | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | Carbaryl | Chlorpyrifos | Dieldrin | Disulfoton | Methyl Parathion | Simazine |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of forty-eight (48) samples exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Instantaneous Maximum, California Department of Fish and Game Criteria, or the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7827 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alachlor | Atrazine | Azinphos-methyl (Guthion) | Carbaryl | Chlorpyrifos | Dieldrin | Disulfoton | Methyl Parathion | Simazine | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples, none exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Regions Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 - alachlor: 76 ppb, atrazine: 1 ppb, azinphos methyl: 0.01 ppb, carbaryl: 0.02 ppb, disulfoton: 0.05 ppb, simazine: 10 ppb.
California Department of Fish and Game: chlropyrifos: 0.014 ppb, parathion: 0.08 ppb, permethrin: 0.03 ppb. CTR Freshwater aquatic life protection Cont Conc 4 day ave - dieldrin: 0.056 ppb |
||||
| 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 | ||||
| National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | |||||
| Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at: Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at Riverside Rd Near Riverside California_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel Near Rubidoux At Santa Ana River_USGS NAWQA site, | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on the following dates: 7/13/00, 8/15-17/00, 9/13/00, 10/19/00, 12/13/00, 1/18/01, 2/21/01, 3/21/01, 4/19/01, 5/16/01, 6/13/01, 7/12/01, 8/14/01, 9/12/01, 10/15/01, 12/12/01, 1/16/02, 2/13/02, 3/13/02, 4/17/02, 6/12/02/, 8/14/02, 10/17/02, 12/11/02, 1/15/03, 2/13/03, 3/12/03, 4/16/03, 6/11/03, 8/13/03, 10/15/03, 12/10/03, 1/14/04, 2/11/04, 3/10/04, 4/12/04, 6/17/04, 8/12/04, 10/14/04, 12/13/04, 2/10/05, 5/13/05, 6/13/05, 8/8/05. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13243 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten (10) of the samples exceed the US EPA National Recommended Criteria of 750 ug/l (acute) and two samples exceed the National Recommended Criteria of 85 ug/l (chronic). These exceedances occurred 20 years ago. The most current data (1990 and beyond), show some exceedances but these occurred in March 2004 (considered to be wet season conditions) during a time the watershed was heavily influenced by wildfires. Pursuant to Section 6.1.5.3, if the majority of the samples were collected on a single day or during a single short term natural event (wildfires) the data shall not be used as the primary data set supporting the listing decision. In addition, grouping the data as a whole is an inappropriate way of assessing the data because the two standards that would apply in the dry season (chronic) is different from the standard that would apply in the wet season (acute). The chronic recommended criteria of 85 ug/l is not an appropriate criteria to use during the dry season because it was derived using toxicity information on only one species of fish and assuming a low hardness that is not representative to arid west conditions of Southern California. There are several exceedances of the 750 ug/l criteria in the dataset. 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 does not satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy because 3. Ten of Forty-one samples exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Criteria of 750 ug/l (acute) during wet weather conditions (assumed to be between October 1 and April 30) and two samples exceed the Recommended Criteria of 85 ug/l (chronic) during the dry weather conditions and this does 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 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28245 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There were 34 samples taken of which there is no applicable guideline during the dry season. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 1982 and ending with 2005. The samples were dry weather samples | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | These samples were collected during the dry season (which is assumed to be between May 1 and September 30). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8321 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 41 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 41 samples collected, 10 exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | US EPA National Recommended Criteria of 750 ug/l (acute) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 1982 and ending with 2005. The samples were wet weather samples | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The watershed was heavily influenced by wildfires in March 2004. The samples were collected during wet weather conditions (assumed to be between October 1 and April 30). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13246 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
Three (3) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of one hundred forty-eight (148) samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25722 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: Arsenic 4-day avg. 150 ug/l, and 1-hr avg. 340 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25723 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 24 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 24 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule: Arsenic 4-day avg. 150 ug/l and 1-hr avg. 340 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 2/17/94, 3/17/94, 11/10/94, 1/23/95, 3/10/95, 12/12/95, 1/31/96, 2/19/96, 3/4/96, 3/13/96, 10/30/96, 11/21/96, 12/9/96, 11/26/97, 1/9/98, 2/3/98, 3/25/98, 1/25/00, 1/24/01, 2/23/01, 4/7/01, 12/26/03, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were grab samples taken during the wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8322 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 118 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 118 samples collected none exceeded the guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | CTR Fresh Water Aquatic Life Protection 4 day Average continuous concentration - 150 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 3/28/1972 through 6/26/2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
7582 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. Four (4) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 36 samples exceeded the acute CTR criteria and 1 of 7 samples exceeded the chronic CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. State Board Review and Conclusion: The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium based on the re-evaluation of the data using different data translators: In the original Regional Board assessment, staff translated the total recoverable cadmium data to the dissolved form for comparison to the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria using total-dissolved translators developed for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries as part of use attainability analyses conducted in the early 1990's. For cadmium and copper, the translator is 2.6; for lead, the translator is 6.1. State Water Board staff re-evaluated the cadmium data using a default CTR translator to translate the data from total recoverable to dissolved cadmium. This is because the translators developed for the Use Attainability Analysis in the 1990's were superseded in 2000 by the federal promulgation of the CTR. In addition, the 1990 translator was approved by USEPA for use with effluent data in NPDES permits only. As a result of the re-evaluation, there are 2 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5829, 5313, 8349, and 25721. The revised recommendation is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant with the CTR chronic criteria. Five of 33 samples exceed the CTR criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 33 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule chronic criteria 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. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body-pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the State Water Board staff recommendation and instead recommended to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium. |
| 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 Review and Conclusion:
The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium based on the re-evaluation of the data using different data translators: In the original Regional Board assessment, staff translated the total recoverable cadmium data to the dissolved form for comparison to the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria using total-dissolved translators developed for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries as part of use attainability analyses conducted in the early 1990's. For cadmium and copper, the translator is 2.6; for lead, the translator is 6.1. State Water Board staff re-evaluated the cadmium data using a default CTR translator to translate the data from total recoverable to dissolved cadmium. This is because the translators developed for the Use Attainability Analysis in the 1990's were superseded in 2000 by the federal promulgation of the CTR. In addition, the 1990 translator was approved by USEPA for use with effluent data in NPDES permits only. As a result of the re-evaluation, there are 2 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5829, 5313, 8349, and 25721. The revised recommendation is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant with the CTR chronic criteria. Five of 33 samples exceed the CTR criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 33 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule chronic criteria 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. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body-pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the State Water Board staff recommendation and instead recommended to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for cadmium. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, the State Water Board recommends that this water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are being exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5829 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 32 samples collected, none exceeded the CTR criteria. The data was analyzed using the total to dissolved ratio metals translator developed through the use attainability analyses done on the Santa Ana River and its tributaries. The ratio for cadmium is 2.6. This data came from the San Bernardino County Flood Control Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life (this standard varies with hardness ranging from 7.46 ug/l to 95.83 ug/l | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at one station at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken monthly starting on 2/17/94 through 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | This samples were grab samples collected during the wet season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31360 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Forty-six samples were collected for this data set. Only 28 samples however have results above the criterion or non-detect results with sample detection limits below the criterion. Five of 28 samples exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence is a result of re-evaluation of data using USEPA conversion factors (translators) to convert dissolved metals criteria to total metals criteria. There are 2 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5829, 5313, 8349, and 25721. |
||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for cadmium. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Site 8 - Santa Ana River, Reach 3 @ Hamner Avenue. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were collected during wet weather conditions from 1994 to 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Wet weather sampling are collected at 4 or more intervals during the rainy season (October 15 through April 15). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31361 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 5 samples exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence is a result of re-evaluation of data using USEPA conversion factors (translators) to convert dissolved metals criteria to total metals criteria. There are 2 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5829, 5313, 8349, and 25721. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for cadmium. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at five sites in Santa Ana River Reach 3: Etiwanda, Hamner, MWD Xing, River Road, and Van Buren. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 8/16/2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8349 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 49 samples available only one was used in the assessment because it had a value above the detection limit and that one exceeded the chronic criteria. The rest of the samples were not used in the assessment because the criteria was below the detection limit and the concentrations were reported as non detect. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | The California Toxics Rule cadmium criteria is hardness dependent and ranged as follows: 2.84 ppb - 7.59 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 11/30/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were collected during the dry weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5313 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 49 samples have been collected below Prado Dam over a period of 18 years starting with 1973. Four of these samples were counted for the assessment because these had the detection limit below the criteria and of these four none exceeded the CTR criteria for cadmium. Total to dissolved ratio of 2.6 was used in converting the results from total to dissolved and then the results were compared to the acute ctr criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule standard for Cadmium varies according to the hardness so this standard changed daily due to hardness differences from day to day. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at one station in Reach 3 below Prado Dam which is at the bottom of the watershed draining into Reach 3. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected starting in 1973 through 1992 and in 2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The criterion for cadmium in the CTR is hardness dependent and the hardness varies in the river, consequently, the standard for cadmium also varies. The samples were collected during the months of October through April and these are the months used to define the wet season so the criteria used to compare the results was the acute criteria. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25721 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. The total to dissolved ratio of 2.6 was used in analyzing this data to convert it to dissolved. The dissolved concentrations were then compared to the chronic criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: The following criteria varies according to hardness: cadmium: 11/1/94: 13.97 ug/l, 6/6/95: 12.7 ug/l, 8/14/95: 15.19 ug/l, 7/30/96: 14.43 ug/l, 8/20/97: 12.7 ug/l, 7/29/98: 13.85 ug/l; copper: 11/1/94: 35.94 ug/l, 6/6/95: 33.19 ug/l, 8/14/95: 38.55 ug/l, 7/30/96: 36.93 ug/l, 8/20/97: 33.19 ug/l, 7/29/98: 35.69 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13248 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran | Molinate | Thiobencarb/Bolero |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of forty-four (44) samples exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Instantaneous Maximum 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7828 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Carbofuran | Molinate | Thiobencarb/Bolero | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 44 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the samples collected exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Regions Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: carbofuran: 0.5 ppb.
California Dept of Fish and Game: 13 ppb, thiobencarb: 3.1 ppb. |
||||
| 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 | ||||
| National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at: Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at Riverside Rd Near Riverside California_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel Near Rubidoux At Santa Ana River_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel at Santa Ana River Near Rubidoux California_USGS NAWQA site. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 7/13/00, 8/15-17/00, 9/13/00, 10/19/00, 12/13/00, 1/18/01, 2/21/02, 3/21/01, 4/19/01, 5/16/01, 6/13/01, 7/12/01, 8/14/01, 9/12/01, 10/15/01, 12/12/01, 1/16/02, 2/13/02, 3/13/02, 4/17/02, 6/12/02, 8/14/02, 10/17/02, 12/11/02,1/15/03, 2/13/03, 3/12/03, 4/16/03, 6/11/03, 8/13/03, 10/15/03, 12/10/03, 1/14/04, 2/11/04, 3/10/04, 4/12/04, 6/17/04, 8/12/04, 6/13/05, 8/8/05. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13305 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chemical oxygen demand (COD) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred eighty-six (186) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred eighty-six (186) of one thousand two hundred eighty-three (1,283) samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8259 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chemical oxygen demand (COD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Groundwater Recharge | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1283 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 186 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 1283 samples collected, 186 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective and the exceedances occurred multiple times beginning with 7/6/1973 through 9/3/1998. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: COD 30 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 7/6/1973 through 8/30/2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13306 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eighty-two (82) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.Eighty-two (82) of two thousand five hundred samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8258 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Groundwater Recharge | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2500 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 82 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 2500 samples taken, 82 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. All the exceedances occurred at one location: Santa Ana River below Prado Dam during the years 11/4/1966 thorugh 10/19/1993 and one exceedance occurring in 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: Chloride - 140 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 11/4/1966 through 2/21/ 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13307 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium, hexavalent |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of eight (8) samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8324 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium, hexavalent | ||||
| 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: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the samples taken exceeded the standard. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | CTR Fresh Water Aquatic Life Protection 4 day Average continuous concentration - 11 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 10/21/1971 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13309 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Cobalt |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. There is no appropriate criteria to evaluate this pollutant. 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. There is no appropriate criteria availalble to evaluate this pollutant. 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 there is no criteria available to do determine if appllicable water quality standards are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8326 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cobalt | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 191 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There is no guideline or criteria available to assess this pollutant for this beneficial use. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 1/18/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13317 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of thirty-four (34) samples exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Continuous Concentration 4 day average 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7829 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 34 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 34 samples none exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Regions Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Cont Conc 4 day ave: 0.001 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at: Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at Riverside Rd Near Riverside California_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel Near Rubidoux At Santa Ana River_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel at Santa Ana River Near Rubidoux California_USGS NAWQA site. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 7/13/00, 8/15-17/00, 9/13/00, 10/19/00, 12/13/00, 1/18/01, 2/21/01, 3/21/01, 4/19/01, 5/16/01, 6/13/01, 7/12/01, 8/14/01, 9/12/01, 10/15/01, 12/12/01, 1/16/02, 2/13/02, 3/13/02, 4/17/02, 6/12/02, 8/14/02, 10/17/02, 12/11/02, 1/15/03, 2/13/03, 3/12/03, 4/16/03, 6/11/03, 8/13/03. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13321 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of forty-eight (48) samples exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game's guidelines 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7830 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples taken none exceeded the California Department of Fish and Game's guidelines | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Regions Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: 0.16 ppb for acute and .100 ppb for chronic | ||||
| 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: Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at Riverside Rd Near Riverside California_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel Near Rubidoux At Santa Ana River_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel at Santa Ana River Near Rubidoux California_USGS NAWQA site. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 7/13/00, 8/15-17/00, 9/13/00, 10/19/00, 12/13/00, 1/18/01, 2/21/01, 3/21/01, 4/19/01, 5/16/01, 6/13/01, 7/12/01, 8/14/01, 9/12/01, 10/15/01, 12/12/01, 1/16/02, 2/13/02, 3/13/02, 4/17/02, 6/12/02, 8/14/02, 10/17/02, 12/11/02, 1/15/03, 2/13/03, 3/12/03, 4/16/03, 6/11/03, 8/13/03, 10/15/03, 12/10/03, 1/14/04, 2/11/04, 3/10/04, 4/12/04, 6/17/04, 8/12/04, 10/14/04, 12/13/04, 2/10/05, 5/13/05, 6/13/05, 8/8/05. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13316 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the dry weather samples (dry weather is assumed May 1 through September 30) exceed the National Recommended Criteria of 1,000 ug/l. 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. None of the dry weather samples out of six (6) exceed the National Recommended Criteria of 1,000 ug/l 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25789 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | US EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Toxicity: iron 4-day avg. 1000 ug/l, | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5833 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There is no guideline to assess the 20 samples. The data originated from San Bernardino County Flood Control Distict Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The 20 samples were collected at one station at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The 20 samples were taken on 2/17/94, 3/17/94, 11/10/94, 1/23/95, 3/10/95, 12/12/95, 1/31/96, 2/19/96, 3/4/96, 3/13/96, 10/30/96, 11/21/96, 12/9/96, 11/26/97, 1/9/98, 2/3/98, 3/25/98, 12/26/03, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as wet weather grabs. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13323 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Malathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two (2) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two (2) of forty-eight (48) samples exceeded the US EPA National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Aquatic Life Protection Instantaneous Maximum 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7831 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 48 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 48 samples collected only two exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Concentrations of Pesticides in the waterbodies in the Santa Ana Region | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Regions Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at: Santa Ana River Below Prado Dam California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at MWD Crossing California_USGS NAWQA site, Santa Ana River at Riverside Rd Near Riverside California_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel Near Rubidoux At Santa Ana River_USGS NAWQA site, Sunnyslope Channel at Santa Ana River Near Rubidoux California_USGS NAWQA site. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 7/13/00, 8/15-17/00, 9/13/00, 10/19/00, 12/13/00, 1/18/01, 2/21/01, 3/21/01, 4/19/01, 5/16/01, 6/13/01, 7/12/01, 8/14/01, 9/12/01, 10/15/01, 12/12/01, 1/16/02, 2/13/02, 3/13/02, 4/17/02, 6/12/02, 8/14/02, 10/17/02, 12/11/02, 1/15/03, 2/13/03, 3/12/03, 4/16/03, 6/11/03, 8/13/03, 10/15/03, 12/10/03, 1/14/04, 2/11/04, 3/10/04, 4/12/04, 6/17/04, 8/12/04, 10/14/04, 12/13/04, 2/10/05, 5/13/05, 6/13/05, 8/8/05. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13247 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
Three (3) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.None of 39 samples exceed the acute criteria and there were no samples used in the assessment of the chronic criteria because of detection limit problems and none of the 50 fish tissue samples exceeded the methyl mercury criteria of 0.3 mg/kg 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5834 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 39 samples, none exceeded the acute criteria listed. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | US EPA National Reccomended Ambient Water Quality Criteria Toxicity: Mercury acute critreria 1.4 ug/l | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Compilation of Water Quality Goals | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at one station at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated aread of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly since 2/17/94 through 2/19/2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were collected as wet weather grabs. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25724 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the samples taken, none were used in the assessment because these were reported as non detect and the detection limit was above the criteria. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | US EPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria Toxicity: Mercury Recommended chronic criteria 0.77 ug/l | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 6/8/94 through 7/29/98 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28291 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Fish whole body | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 50 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 50 samples taken, none exceeded the National Recommended Criteria. This data came from the Mercury Monitoring Program conducted under Order No. 99-5 NPDES No. CA8000188 | ||||
| Data Reference: | This Report presents results of analyses of fish tissues collected from the Santa Ana River basin from 1995 through 2005 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health - consumption of organisms only 0.3 mg/kg | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury. Final. United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. EPA-823-R-01-001. January 2001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 3 stations: SAR 6 - NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec 30, T2SR5W: Located upstream of the Riverside Water Reclamation Facility effluent, just upstream of the MWD pipe crossing in Reach 3. This site is located within Riverside Narrows.
SAR 8 - SW1/4 NE 1/4 Sec 31,T2SR6W: Located downstream of 100% of the RSWRF effluent, upstream of the Hamner Ave bridge in Reach 3. This site is downstream of the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area. SAR 9- NE 1/4 SW 1/4 Sec 10, T3SR7W: located still furher downstream of the RSWRF effluent, upstream of the Prado Dam near the Archibald Avenue/River Road bridge in Reach 3. This site is located just upstream of the Prado Ponds diversion. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected annually since 1995 through 2004 and in 2005. The samples were collected between July and October of each year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The quality assurance report is included with the laboratory reports and is acceptable for assessment purposes. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13315 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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 (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of thrity-six (36) samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5342 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The data came from the NPDES dischargers, there were 18 samples collected and no exceedances found. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR standard depends on hardness so this objective varies and it ranged from 56 ug/l to 175 ug/l during the sampling period | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at one location below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | This data encompassess 17 years of monitoring monthly from November 1972 to August 2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The standard depends on the hardness in the receiving water and because of that, the standard changes. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8365 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 18 samples taken, none exceeded the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | The California Toxics Rule cadmium criteria is hardness dependent and ranged as follows: 56.54 ppb - 168.54 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 11/30/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13322 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Salinity/TDS/Chlorides |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven hundred thirty-four (734) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven hundred thirty-four (734) of four thousand one hundred eighty-two (4,182) samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8263 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Salinity/TDS/Chlorides | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4182 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 734 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 4182 samples collected, 734 ecxeeded the Basin Plan objective. The exceedances occurred between the years 11/4/1966 through 12/27/2006 | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: 700 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 10/11/1966 through 2/21/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13312 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
Three (3) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two (2) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two (2) of two hundred seven (207) samples exceeded the National Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8341 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 182 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 182 samples collected, 2 exceeded the guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | CTR Fresh Water Aquatic Life Protection 4 day Average continuous concentration - 20 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 5/29/1973 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25790 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | National Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: Selenium 4-day avg. 5 ug/l and 1-hr avg. 20 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5946 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 19 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 19 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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: | National Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: Selenium 4-day avg. 5 ug/l and 1-hr avg. 20 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliances | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on the following dates: 2/17/94, 3/19/94, 11/10/94, 3/10/95, 12/12/95, 1/31/96, 2/19/96, 3/4/96, 3/13/96, 10/30/96, 11/21/96, 12/9/96, 11/26/97, 1/9/98, 2/3/98, 3/25/98, 12/26/03, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as grabs during the wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13314 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Silver |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
Four (4) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two (2) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two (2) of one hundred four (104) samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5343 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The data was obtained from the NPDES dischargers and out of 30 samples only 1 exceeded the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR standard depends on hardness so it varies according to the hardness of the receiving water | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sampling location is below Prado Dam at the bottom of the watershed that drains into the Santa Ana River Reach 3. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | This data was collected over a span of 17 years. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | the hardness in the river changes and so the standard changes as well. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5937 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: The following criteria varies according to hardness: silver: 11/1/94: 22.69 ug/l, 6/6/95: 19.63 ug/l, 8/14/95: 25.79 ug/l, 7/30/96: 23.85 ug/l, 8/20/97: 19.63 ug/l, 7/29/98: 22.41 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25785 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 20 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life (this criteria varies according to hardness as follows): silver: 2/17/94: 8.72 ug/l, 3/19/94: 11.15 ug/l, 11/10/94: 20.03 ug/l, 1/23/95: 19.36 ug/l, 3/10/95: 12.13 ug/l, 12/12/95: 25.04 ug/l, 1/31/96: 14.54 ug/l, 2/19/96: 31.64 ug/l, 3/4/96: 42.17 ug/l, 3/13/96: 9.11 ug/l, 10/30/96: 21 ug/l, 11/21/96: 13.37 ug/l, 12/9/96: 18.3 ug/l, 11/26/97: 19.63 ug/l, 1/9/98: 2.41 ug/l, 2/3/98: 18.3 ug/l, 3/25/98: 19.63 ug/l, 12/26/03: 427.84 ug/l, 2/3/04: 83.46 ug/l, 2/19/04: 14.54 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on: 2/17/94, 3/19/94, 11/10/94, 1/23/95, 3/10/95, 12/12/95, 1/31/96, 2/19/96, 3/4/96, 3/13/96, 10/30/96, 11/21/96, 12/9/96, 11/26/97, 1/9/98, 2/3/98, 3/25/98, 12/26/03, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as grab samples during the wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8368 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 39 samples taken, only one exceeded the criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | The California Toxics Rule cadmium criteria is hardness dependent and ranged as follows: 4.78 ppb - 44.05 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 11/30/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13324 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Sodium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred twenty (120) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred twenty (120) of two thousand eighty-two (2082) samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8260 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sodium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2082 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 120 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 2082 samples collected, 120 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective and the exceedances occurred over several years beginning with 1/14/1969 through 2/21/2007 | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: sodium - 110 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 7/16/1984 through 2/21/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13320 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred twenty-three of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One hundred twenty-three (123) of two thousand three hundred seventy-nine samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8262 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2379 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 123 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 2379 samples collected, 123 exceeded the Basin Plan objective. The exceedances occurred between the years 1/6/1967 through 11/16/1993 and one exceedance occurred on 8/9/2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: sulfate - 150 mg/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 710/11/1966 through 2/21/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13325 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Six (6) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six (6) of two hundred sixty-two (262) samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8257 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 262 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the two samples collected, six exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. The exceedances occurred at the following locations: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: Total Inorganic Nitrogen - 10 mg/l. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with April 5, 2006 through February 21, 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13311 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
Four (4) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirteen (13) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirteen (13) of two hundred two (202) samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5350 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 88 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The data was obtained from the NPDES dischargers who with the help of Wildermouth Environmental Consutling, have compiled it into a database. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR standard varies because it is hardness dependent and the hardness in the river changes from day to day. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | One location below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The data was collected over a span of 17 years. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The standard depends on hardness and the hardness of the river changes from day to day. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25791 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: The following criteria varies according to hardness: zinc: 11/1/94: 279.72 ug/l, 6/6/95: 260.43 ug/l, 8/14/95: 297.92 ug/l, 7/30/96: 286.68 ug/l, 8/20/97: 260.43 ug/l, 7/29/98: 277.98 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 11/1/94, 6/6/95, 8/14/95, 7/30/96, 8/20/97, 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5836 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 20 samples collected, 7 exceeded the standards/guidelines listed. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life (this criteria varies according to hardness as follows): 2/17/94: 174.64 ug/l, 3/19/94: 197.16 ug/l, 11/10/94: 263.08 ug/l, 1/23/95: 258.66 ug/l, 3/10/95: 205.48 ug/l, 12/12/95: 293.6 ug/l, 1/31/96: 224.6 ug/l, 2/19/96: 329.5 ug/l, 3/4/96: 379.6 ug/l, 3/13/96: 178.43 ug/l, 10/30/96: 269.23 ug/l, 11/21/96: 215.57 ug/l, 12/9/96: 251.58 ug/l, 11/26/97: 260.43 ug/l, 1/9/98: 277.98 ug/l, 2/3/98: 251.58 ug/l, 3/25/98: 260.43 ug/l, 1/9/98: 277.98 ug/l, 2/3/98: 251.58 ug/l, 3/25/98: 260.43 ug/l, 12/26/03: 1,188.55 ug/l, 2/3/04: 531.34 ug/l, 2/19/04: 224.66 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The 20 samples were collected at one station at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The 20 samples were taken on 2/17/94, 3/17/94, 11/10/94, 1/23/95, 3/10/95, 12/12/95, 1/31/96, 2/19/96, 3/4/96, 3/13/96, 10/30/96, 11/21/96, 12/9/96, 11/26/97, 1/9/98, 2/3/98, 3/25/98, 12/26/93, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as wet weather grabs. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8371 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 88 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 88 samples taken, 3 exceeded the standard. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | The California Toxics Rule cadmium criteria is hardness dependent and ranged as follows: 129.89 ppb - 404.20 ppb | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 11/30/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13227 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Eighteen (18) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Eighteen (18) of one thousand three hundred fifty-three (1,353) samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8261 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1350 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 18 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 1350 field measurements collected, 18 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective and the exceedances occurred over several years beginning with 1/14/1969 and ending with 2/21/2007. Fourteen of the exceedances were above the Basin Plan objective of 8.5 pH units and 4 were below the objective of 6.5 pH units. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin Plan Objective: pH 6.5 - 8.5 pH units | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at six locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., and below Prado Dam. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected multiple times per month over several years beginning with 10/11/1966 through 2/21/2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5942 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 3 measurements taken, none exceeded the standards/guidelines listed above. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Numeric Objective: The pH of inland surface waters shall not be raised above 8.5 or depressed below 6.5 as a result of controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on 12/26/03, 2/3/04, 2/19/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as grab samples during the wet weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
13308 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| 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 (2) lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Seven (7) of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Seven (7) of seventeen samples exceed the California Toxics Rule acute criteria and none exceed the chronic criteria 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. State Board Staff Review 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. Default CTR translators were used to evaluate total metals data with dissolved metals criteria since the translators developed for the Use Attainability Analysis in the 1990's were superseded in 2000 by the federal promulgation of the California Toxics Rule. Following the provisions of the State Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California of 2005, USEPA conversion factors (translators) are to be used to convert total metals criteria to dissolved metals criteria. As a result, LOEs 5337 and 5831 have been replaced during State Board review. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant with the CTR chronic criteria. Twenty-nine samples exceed the CTR criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-nine of 62 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule chronic criteria 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: | The CTR metals criteria, which are the applicable basis for impairment assessment, are expressed in the dissolved form. However, the metals data available for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries are in the total recoverable form. To convert the data to the dissolved form for comparison to the CTR criteria, total-dissolved translators developed for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries as part of use attainability analyses conducted in the early 1990s were employed (for cadmium and copper, the translator is 2.6; for lead, the translator is 6.1). These translators have been employed since their development in the early 1990s, together with the CTR metals criteria, to develop total recoverable effluent limitations for these metals in NPDES permits issued to POTWs that discharge to the River and its tributaries. The River/tributaries are effluent dominated: most of the flow in this system is comprised of treated municipal wastewater. It is thus reasonable and appropriate to apply the established translators to the conversion of ambient total recoverable metals data to dissolved values for comparison to the CTR criteria.
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: | State Water Board staff, after review, concurs with RWQCB Decision to place this water body-pollutant combination on the 303(d) List, however, staff does not concur with all the reasons contained in the Regional Board Weight of Evidence and Recommendation. After review of the available data and information, SWRCB 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. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5337 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 17 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data obtianed from San Bernardino County Flood Control Storm Water Program. Out of 17 samples collected, 7 exceeded the acute CTR criteria. A total to dissolved ratio was used in converting the data from total to dissolved. this ratio was developed through the Use Attainability Analyses for the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR acute criteria varies depending on hardness and ranged from 17 ug/l to 70 ug/l | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Hamner in Santa Ana River Reach 3. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected since 2/17/94 through 2/19/2004 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The data was collected during the wet season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31370 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine samples collected did not exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence replaces LOEs 5337 and 5831. These LOEs have been replaced as a result of the State Board review and revision of the Regional Board assessment of these monitoring data. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for copper. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at five sites in Santa Ana River Reach 3: Etiwanda, Hamner, MWD Xing, River Road, and Van Buren. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 3/15/2004 and 8/16/2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5831 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples collected none exceeded the chronic criteria. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. This data was analyzed using the total to dissolved ratio of 2.6 that was developed through the Use Attainability Analyses for the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life acute criteria varies with hardness and ranged from 31 ug/l to 37 ug/l | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The 6 samples were collected at one station at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected starting on 6/8/94 through 7/29/98. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as wet weather grabs. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was provided by an NPDES discharger in compliance with the permit's monitoring requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31371 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 47 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 29 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-nine of 47samples exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence replaces LOEs 5337 and 5831. These LOEs have been replaced as a result of the State Board review and revision of the Regional Board assessment of these monitoring data. |
||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for copper. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Site 8 - Santa Ana River, Reach 3 @ Hamner Avenue. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were collected during wet weather conditions from 1994 to 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Wet weather sampling are collected at 4 or more intervals during the rainy season (October 15 through April 15). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31368 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples collected did not exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence replaces LOEs 5337 and 5831. These LOEs have been replaced as a result of the State Board review and revision of the Regional Board assessment of these monitoring data. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for copper. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Site 8 - Santa Ana River @ Hamner Ave. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during dry weather conditions (mid-summer) from 1994 to 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | During dry weather season, storm drain systems do not experience continuous flows. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
16449 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | USEPA Final Approval Decision Details:
The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following: USEPA has added Santa Ana River Reach 3 to the list of water quality limited segments requiring a TMDL for lead. USEPA determined that the metals criteria established in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) apply to this segment and that using the 40 CFR 131.38(b) conversion factors for lead and copper is appropriate in this action. The numeric criteria in 40 CFR 131.38 applicable to lead and copper are themselves products of the conversion factors. Before developing the criteria that EPA is now assessing, the agency established, pursuant to Clean Water Act section 304, Guidance Values for copper and lead expressed in the total recoverable fraction. Using those "total recoverable" Guidance Values, EPA then calculated the current "dissolved" criteria for those metals by applying the conversion factors in 40 CFR 131.38(b). See, 40 CFR 131.38(b)(1), footnote m. USEPA concludes that the same factors that EPA used to convert "total recoverable" to "dissolved" values can be appropriately used to convert the current "total recoverable" data to a "dissolved" equivalent. USEPA evaluated data using the criteria and default conversion factors established in the CTR, and found impairment of this water body by lead. Of the 28 samples, 22 exceeded the CTR criteria. An additional 14 samples were collected with detection limits that were inadequate to assess the standard and may represent additional exceedances. Observed exceedances are greater than the 3% exceedance threshold for toxicants as expressed in Table 3.1 of the State Listing Policy. The data included sampling results from both wet and dry periods. EPA notes that the subject criteria apply regardless of season, and EPA concludes that the sampling data are sufficiently representative. For clarification, the Regional and State Water Board decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented below: Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have NOT been revised. USEPA's worksheet has been included in the administrative record as reference number 3645, titled "USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of lead to California 2010 303 (d) list for Santa Ana River Reach 3". |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Regional Water Board Decision Recommendation (prior to State Water Board approval):
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. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of 47 samples exceeded the acute CTR criteria and none of 6 samples exceeded the chronic CTR criteria and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The CTR metals criteria, which are the applicable basis for impairment assessment, are expressed in the dissolved form. However, the metals data available for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries are in the total recoverable form. To convert the data to the dissolved form for comparison to the CTR criteria, total-dissolved translators developed for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries as part of use attainability analyses conducted in the early 1990's were employed (for cadmium and copper, the translator is 2.6; for lead, the translator is 6.1). These translators have been employed since their development in the early 1990s, together with the CTR metals criteria, to develop total recoverable effluent limitations for these metals in NPDES permits issued to POTWs that discharge to the River and its tributaries. The River/tributaries are effluent dominated: most of the flow in this system is comprised of treated municipal wastewater. It is thus reasonable and appropriate to apply the established translators to the conversion of ambient total recoverable metals data to dissolved values for comparison to the CTR criteria. 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: | For clarification, the Regional and State Water Board decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented below:
Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have NOT been revised. USEPA's worksheet has been included in the administrative record as reference number 3645, titled "USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of lead to California 2010 303 (d) list for Santa Ana River Reach 3". |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | State Water Board Decision Recommendation (prior to USEPA approval):
The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for lead based on the re-evaluation of the data using different data translators: In the original Regional Board assessment, staff translated the total recoverable lead data to the dissolved form for comparison to the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria using total-dissolved translators developed for the Santa Ana River and its tributaries as part of use attainability analyses conducted in the early 1990's. For cadmium and copper, the translator is 2.6; for lead, the translator is 6.1. State Water Board staff re-evaluated the lead data using a default CTR translator to translate the data from total recoverable to dissolved lead. This is because the translators developed for the Use Attainability Analysis in the 1990's were superseded in 2000 by the federal promulgation of the California Toxics Rule. In addition, the 1990 translator was approved by USEPA for use with effluent data in NPDES permits only. As a result of the re-evaluation, there are 3 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5338, 5940, 25788 and 8361. The revised recommendation is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant with the CTR chronic criteria. Thirty of 48 samples exceed the CTR criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirty of 48 samples exceed the California Toxics Rule chronic criteria 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. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body-pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for lead. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the State Water Board staff recommendation and instead recommended to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for lead. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA identified this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31374 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the 6 samples exceeded the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence is a result of re-evaluation of data using USEPA conversion factors (translators) to convert dissolved metals criteria to total metals criteria. There are 3 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5338, 5940, 25788 and 8361. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for lead. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Site 8 - Santa Ana River @ Hamner Ave. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during dry weather conditions (mid-summer) from 1994 to 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | During dry weather season, storm drain systems do not experience continuous flows. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31369 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples collected did not exceed the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria.
This line of evidence is a result of re-evaluation of data using USEPA conversion factors (translators) to convert dissolved metals criteria to total metals criteria. There are 3 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5338, 5940, 25788 and 8361. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for lead. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at five sites in Santa Ana River at Etiwanda, Hamner, MWD Xing, River Road, and Van Buren. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 8/16/2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8361 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 7 samples taken none exceeded the acute criteria. This data was evaluated using the total to dissolved ratio of 6.1 that was developed from the Use Attainability Analyses for the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan objective: 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: | The California Toxics Rule lead criteria is hardness dependent and ranged as follows: 116.63ppb-613.57ppb. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 6 locations in the Santa Ana River as follows: at Etiwanda Avenue, at Hamner, at MWD Xing, at River Road, at Van Buren Blvd., Below Prado Dam | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected several times per month throughout a period of several years beginning with 11/30/1972 through 8/16/2005 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were collected during the months of October through April which are considered to be the wet season months. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was submitted by an NPDES discharger in accordance with its Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 31372 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 37 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 29 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Forty-seven samples were collected for this data set. However, only 37 samples have results above the criterion or non-detect results with sample detection limits below the criterion.
Twenty-nine of the 37 samples exceeded the CTR chronic criterion. Total metals data were converted to compare with dissolved metals criteria. This line of evidence is a result of re-evaluation of data using USEPA conversion factors (translators) to convert dissolved metals criteria to total metals criteria. There are 3 new LOEs that replace the original group of LOEs. The original LOEs were: 5338, 5940, 25788 and 8361. |
||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) for freshwater aquatic life for lead. Numeric criterion varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Site 8 - Santa Ana River @ Hamner Ave. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during wet weather conditions from 1994 to 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5940 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Most of this data was reported as non detect and the detection limit was above the chronic criteria. So none of the samples were used in the assessment. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life varies with hardness. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly starting with September 1973 through August 2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken as grab samples during the dry weather. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25788 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 6 samples taken, none exceeded the CTR acute criteria. This data was obtained from the self monitoring reports submitted by San Bernardino County Flood Control District Storm Water Program. Since the data was submitted in the total recoverable form, a total to dissolved translator of 6.1 was used to convert the data to dissolved form. This translator was developed through the Use Attainability Analyses that was done for the Santa Ana River. | ||||
| Data Reference: | San Bernardino County Flood Control District data from storm water program | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana Region's Basin Plan Narrative Objective: 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 Toxics Rule Aquatic Life: The following criteria varies according to hardness: lead: 11/1/94: 291.83 ug/l, 6/6/95: 262.12 ug/l, 8/14/95: 320.81 ug/l, 7/30/96: 302.80 ug/l, 8/20/97: 262.12 ug/l, 7/29/98: 289.11 ug/l; | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the Hamner Avenue Bridge in the Santa Ana River near the City of Norco in the unincorporated area of Riverside County. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken on in the wet season starting with 6/8/94 through 7/29/98 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The samples were taken during the dry season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5338 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 40 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 40 samples collected none exceeded the acute CTR criteria Since the data was reported as total recoverable. the total to dissolved ratio of 6.1 that was developed from the Use Attainability Analyse of the Santa Ana River was used to translate the total concetrations to dissolved concentrations. This data came from the NPDES discharger's consultant who keeps the data in a database. | ||||
| Data Reference: | 2006 HCMP Database | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR criterion depends on hardness and hardness in the river changes daily. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected below Prado Dam at the bottom of the watershed that drains into the Santa Ana River Reach 3. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | This data encompasses 17 years of monitoring. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Hardness changes in the river and the criterion changes as well because it is hardness dependent. The data was collected during the wet season. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The datas quality is deemed appropriate because it originated from an NPDES discharger in compliance with their monitoring and reporting program requirements. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6807 |
Region 8 |
Santa Ana River, Reach 3 |
||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Dairies |
| TMDL Name: | Prado Area Streams Pathogen TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 90 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 05/16/2007 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
The Prado Area Streams Pathogen TMDL was approved by the RWQCB in 2007 and subsequently approved by USEPA on 5/16/07. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision made by the State Water Resources Control Board and approved by the USEPA in 2006 . No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2991 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||