Final California 2012 Integrated Report( 303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 8 - Santa Ana Region

Water Body Name: Peters Canyon Channel
Water Body ID: CAR8011100020050602204221
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
24840
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One (1) 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 sixty-six (66) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective 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: 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 24840, Ammonia (Unionized)
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 8515
 
Pollutant: Ammonia (Unionized)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 66
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 66 samples collected, two exceeded the Basin Plan's objective. One of the exceedances occurred in Peter's Canyon at station pc1 and the other occurred at station pc2
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; the objective ranged during the sampling period as follows: 0.10 mg/l - 0.24 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 the Peter's Canyon Channel: pc1 and pc2
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken monthly starting with 3/9/2004 through 3/29/2006
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
28779
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
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.

One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero 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. Zero of Sixty eight 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 28779, Temperature, water
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 28938
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 68
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 68 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: Peter's Canyon Channel 1, Peter's Canyon Channel 2
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected monthly starting on 3/9/2004 through 3/29/2006.
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
19441
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
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.

This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

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. Three of the 14 samples exceeded the NAS Guideline 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: 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19441, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 2986
 
Pollutant: DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms
 
Number of Samples: 14
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three out of 14 samples exceeded the guideline. A total of 13 whole fish composite samples of red shiner and one whole fish composite of flathead minnow were collected. Red shiner samples were collected in 1992-2002. Flathead minnow sample was collected in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in 1992-93 and 1998 samples of red shiner (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Santa Ana River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline: 1000 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)] (NAS, 1972).
Guideline Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Spatial Representation: One station located upstream from Irvine Center Parkway Bridge.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected annually from 1992-2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
30307
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: Indicator Bacteria
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: 2021
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.

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 added Peters Canyon Channel to the list of water quality limited segments requiring a TMDL for indicator bacteria. This water body is designated as a Water Contact Recreation (REC1) water body either explicitly or implicitly as tributaries to other designated segments (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, Table 3-1, pp.3-23 - 3-35).

The Santa Ana Basin Plan has the following water quality objective for fecal coliform to protect REC1 beneficial use:

Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9)

Recent monitoring data collected in this water body measures Escherichia coli (E. coli) indicator bacteria. E. coli is one species within the broader category of fecal coliform bacteria and monitoring data for E. coli can be used to evaluate whether the fecal coliform objective is being met in the subject water body.

In addition, USEPA has recommended that California use USEPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria (1986) when there is no adopted E. coli standard. Specifically, USEPA recommends that for REC1 beneficial use the following criteria be used:

Steady state geometric mean indicator density - 126 indicator densities/100ml Designated beach area (upper 75% confidence limit) - 235 indicator densities/100ml (EPA, 1986, Table 4, pp.15)

USEPA compared the E. coli data for this water body to the Basin Plan's fecal coliform objective, as well as to USEPA's recommended E. coli criteria and the results were:

1. Forty of the 66 samples taken exceeded the USEPA E. coli criteria (235 organisms/100ml).
2. Thirty-seven of the 66 samples taken exceeded the Basin Plan objective for fecal coliform (400 organisms/100ml).

For this water body segment, sufficient exceedances of the fecal coliform objective and the USEPA recommended criteria exist to merit listings per the 10% exceedance threshold for conventional pollutants expressed in Table 3.2 of the State Listing Policy.

For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision.

Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision.
 
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: For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their respective recommendation fields in this decision.

Note: All lines of evidence (LOEs) previously made by the Regional Boards have been revised where necessary in accordance with USEPA's final decision.
 
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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 30307, Indicator Bacteria
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 21468
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 66
Number of Exceedances: 40
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 66 samples taken by Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project, 40 exceeded USEPA's recommended single sample standard and 37 samples exceeded the Basin Plan fecal coliform objective.
Data Reference: Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project
  USEPA Partial Approval Disapproval Letter and enclosures for California's 2008-2010 303(d) List
  USEPA Final Decision Letter with enclosures and responsiveness summary regarding waters added to California's 2008-2010 303(d) List
  USEPA Region 9 data summary for addition of indicator bacteria to California 2010 303(d) list for some Santa Ana River - Region 8 water bodies
 
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 30-day period, and single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL.

Santa Ana Region Basin Plan objective for Fecal coliform: log mean less than 200 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples/30 day period, and not more than 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms/100 mL for any 30-day period. (RWQCB Santa Ana Region, 2008, pp.4-9)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin
  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were taken from two locations Peters Canyon 1 and 2 (pc1 and pc2):

pc1 is Located in Irvine in upper Peter's Canyon Channel on Bryan Street between Jamboree Rd. and Culver Dr.

pc2 is Located In Irvine in lower Peter's Canyon Channel on Barranca Pkwy between Jamboree Rd. and Harvard Av.
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken monthly starting on March 9, 2004 through March 29, 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 was obtained under the auspices of a QAPP approved by the Regional Board.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
19102
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
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.

This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant.

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. Nine of the 14 samples exceeded the NAS Guideline 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: 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.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 19102, Toxaphene
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 2987
 
Pollutant: Toxaphene
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Tissue
Matrix: Tissue
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 14
Number of Exceedances: 9
 
Data and Information Type: Fish tissue analysis
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Nine out of 14 samples exceeded. A total of 13 whole fish composite samples of red shiner and one whole fish composite of fathead minnow were collected. Red shiner samples were collected in 1992-2002. Flathead minnow sample was collected in 2001. The guideline was exceeded in 1992-98 samples of red shiner. Samples from 1999-2002 did not exceed the guideline (TSMP, 2002).
Data Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
SWAMP Data: Non-SWAMP
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Santa Ana River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Evaluation Guideline: 100 ng/g [NAS Guideline (whole fish)] (NAS, 1972).
Guideline Reference: Placeholder reference 2006 303(d)
 
Spatial Representation: One station located upstream from Irvine Center Parkway Bridge.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected annually from 1992-2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game.

Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
25154
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
Pollutant: pH
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: 2021
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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Forty-three (43) 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. Forty-three (43) of seventy-two (72) samples exceed the Basin Plan Objective 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.
 
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 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 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 be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 25154, pH
Region 8     
Peters Canyon Channel
 
LOE ID: 21445
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 72
Number of Exceedances: 43
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Of the 72 samples collected 43 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 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: Peter's Canyon 1 and Peter's Canyon 2. Peters Canyon 1 is Located in Irvine in upper Peter’s Canyon Channel on Bryan St. between Jamboree Rd. and Culver Dr.
Peter's Canyon 2 is Located In Irvine in lower Peter’s Canyon Channel on Barranca Pkwy between Jamboree Rd. and Harvard Av.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected monthly starting on March 9, 2004 through March 29, 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):