2019-040 - Mainplace Mall Transformation

Home Browse Search

Policy. 3. Thirty-three of 199 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. RWQCB staff concludes that the water body -pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because standards are not being exceeded.. State Board Review of For historical clarification, the Regional and State Water Board detailed decision Regional Board recommendations made prior to USEPA's final decision are presented in their Conclusion and respective recommendation fields in this decision. Recommendation: 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 State Water Board Decision Recommendation (prior to USEPA approval): Recommendation: 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 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 not place this water body -pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list of water quality limited segments. 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 Boards 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. Thirty-three of 199 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.