| Water Body Name: | Buck Gully Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8011100020011005142440 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
24700 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the seventy-four (74) 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 seventy-four (74) samples exceeded the Basin Plan's 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: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8499 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 74 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 74 samples taken, none exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Objective: The objective varies according to the temperature of the water being sampled and ranged during the sampling period as follows: 0.13 mg/l - 0.51 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 two stations in Buck Gully: Buck Gully 1 (bg1) and Buck Gully (bg2) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/8/2004 through 4/13/2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
29777 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. Twenty-Three of 68 samples exceeded the EPA's single sample value of 236. While the frequency of measurements above this single sample value would warrant listing pursuant to the Listing Policy (Table 3.2), listing on the bases of these data is not appropriate at this time, based on the following: (1). The samples were collected on a monthly basis; insufficient samples were collected to derive geomeans. EPA has made clear in relevant guidance and regulation on EPA's bacteria criteria (e.g., Section IV B 3 of 40 CFR Part 131 (Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule) that the geometric mean is the more relevant value for ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to protect and improve water quality because it is a more reliable measure, being subject to less random variation and more directly linked to the underlying studies on which the 1986 bacteria criteria were based. EPA has consistently stated that the single sample standard is best used in making beach notifications and closure decisions. (2). The single sample value of 236 employed for comparative purposes is inappropriate since it is based on inappropriate assumptions regarding data variability and the intensity of recreational use at the sites (there are not designated beach areas). The value of 236 is derived based on the assumptions that (1) the log standard deviation of measured E. coli concentrations is 0.4 (essentially a default value that is assumed in the absence of adequate data/analysis), and (2) that the 75th percentile value should be selected to protect designated beach areas. EPA recommends that this percentile value be used for designated beach areas where a higher level of confidence is needed to assure that the geomean is being met. (As described in detail by EPA, single sample maximum values are statistical constructs designed to provide the assurance that geomean objectives are met. Greater confidence is needed where recreational use, and the threat of exposure, is highest; where there is limited recreational use, lower confidence is needed that the geomean is achieved.) However, the waters at issue here are not designated beach areas and receive little recreational use. Further, data variability is higher than the default value of 0.4. As a result, the applicable single sample value for comparative assessment purposes is not 236, but a higher value (which should be determined through a standards setting process; the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force is engaged in this effort right now.Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Twenty-three of 68 samples exceeded the Ocean Plan's single sample standard and this standard is not appropriate on which to base listing decisions. The geometric mean standard is the appropriate standard on which to base listing decisions. The data available consists of monthly samples and geometric means can not be calculated. 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 Escherichia coli (E. coli) based on the following: As a result of State Board staff review, State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB Decision to Do Not List the water body-pollutant combination. Listing Policy section 6.1 requires all readily available data and information shall be evaluated. In the absence of geometric mean information single sample data will be assessed. State Water Board staff agreed with the assessment contained in the associated LOE developed by Regional Board which is based on, water quality criteria of 235 MPN per 100ml (REC-1). It is State Water Board staff's position that based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in support 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-three of 68 samples exceeded the single sample water quality objective for E. coli in fresh water and this exceeds 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. 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 E. coli. 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 staff recommendation and decided to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. USEPA Review and Conclusion: 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 concerning E. coli and Buck Gully Creek: "Two additional water bodies, San Diego Creek Reach 1 and Buck Gully Creek, show impairment by E. coli bacteria but are also identified as impaired by total and/or fecal coliform by the State. In these cases, EPA is not recommending listing for indicator bacteria for these reaches since they are already listed. The recent E. coli data for these two water bodies indicate that the previously identified total and/or fecal coliform impairments remain a concern." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff 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 Escherichia coli (E. coli) based on the following: As a result of State Board staff review, State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB Decision to Do Not List the water body-pollutant combination. Listing Policy section 6.1 requires all readily available data and information shall be evaluated. In the absence of geometric mean information single sample data will be assessed. State Water Board staff agreed with the assessment contained in the associated LOE developed by Regional Board which is based on, water quality criteria of 235 MPN per 100ml (REC-1). It is State Water Board staff's position that based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in support 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-three of 68 samples exceeded the single sample water quality objective for E. coli in fresh water and this exceeds 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. 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 E. coli. 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 staff recommendation and decided to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. USEPA Review and Conclusion: 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 concerning E. coli and Buck Gully Creek: "Two additional water bodies, San Diego Creek Reach 1 and Buck Gully Creek, show impairment by E. coli bacteria but are also identified as impaired by total and/or fecal coliform by the State. In these cases, EPA is not recommending listing for indicator bacteria for these reaches since they are already listed. The recent E. coli data for these two water bodies indicate that the previously identified total and/or fecal coliform impairments remain a concern." |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21463 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 68 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 23 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 68 single samples collected 23 exceeded EPA's Recommended Water Quality Criteria for single samples. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986: E. coli: log mean less than 126 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples per 30day period, and single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at two stations in the Buck Gully: Site 1 and Site 2. Buck Gully 1 is Located in Newport Beach in the upper Buck Gully Creek near Poppy Street and Fifth Street intersection.
Buck Gully 2 is Located in Newport Beach in the lower Buck Gully Creek at little Corona Del Mar beach. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly starting on March 8, 2004 through April 13, 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it came from the Department of Pesticide Regulation. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
28764 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. 1 line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the seventy-seven 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. Zero of seventy-seven 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: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28936 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 77 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 77 samples collected, 0 exceeded the Basin Plan Objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for natural receiving water are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan. The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of waters designated WARM shall not be raised above 90°F June through October or above 78°F during the rest of the year 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 two stations: Buck Gully 1 and Buck Gully 2 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected monthly starting on 3/8/2004 through 4/13/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
24757 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One (1) 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 (1) of seventy-eight (78) 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: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21441 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 78 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 78 samples taken 1 exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. The exceedance occurred in Site 2 of Buck Gully Creek. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Objective: The ph of inland surface waters shall not be raised above 8.5 pH units or depressed below 6.5 pH units 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 two stations in the Buck Gully Creek Channel: Site 1 and Site 2. Site 1 is Located in Newport Beach in the Upper Buck Gully creek near the Poppy Street and Fifth Street intersection. Site 2 is located in Newport Beach in the Lower Buck Gully Creek at little Corona Del Mar Beach. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/8/2004 through 4/13/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed acceptable because it was collected under the auspices of a Regional Board staff's approved quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
20450 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4403 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| 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 pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
28722 |
Region 8 |
Buck Gully Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4404 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
| 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 pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||