| Water Body Name: | San Jose Creek Reach 2 (Temple to I-10 at White Ave.) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4055100019980918093038 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
34242 |
Region 4 |
San Jose Creek Reach 2 (Temple to I-10 at White Ave.) |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | San Gabriel River Coliform (45) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 391 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 06/14/2016 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. However only the E.Coli line of evidence is applicable due to a change in water quality objectives. 31 of 82 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 31 of 82 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVES and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The San Gabriel River Bacteria TMDL was approved by USEPA on 06/14/2016. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4148 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Coliform Bacteria | ||||
| 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 |
32691 |
Region 4 |
San Jose Creek Reach 2 (Temple to I-10 at White Ave.) |
||
| Pollutant: | Excess Algal Growth |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This condition is being considered for delisting under section 4.7 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It is not known if the algae information is backed by pollutant data. Algae should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it is not a pollutant or toxicity (section 2 of the Listing Policy). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the Section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2579 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Excess Algal Growth | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six observations with 2 of the observations judged to be partially not supporting beneficial uses (LACSD, 2004b). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growth causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The presence of algae in the water segment was used as the guideline. The rankings were subjective and assigned to water bodies by one person for consistency. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sampling location. In 1996, San Jose Creek was defined as a single segment. When the segment was split the listing was applied to both segments. There is no assessment in Reach 2 as currently defined. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Observations made between 1990 and 1993. Samples taken in different seasons and 4 samples taken in 1992. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No QA information provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||