| Water Body Name: | Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4035100019990204123459 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
18030 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; due to restoration activities |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Nitrogen |
| TMDL Project Code: | 227 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/18/2004 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 4 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 removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the 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. One of 75 samples exceeded the pH and temperature dependent Basin Plan 30-day average objective for ammonia and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. A remedial program other than a TMDL had been developed, approved, and implemented. This program was expected to result in attainment of the standard. 5. The USEPA final decision for the 2006 303(d) list added this listing to the 'being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL' portion of the 303(d) List because the Santa Clara River Nitrogen TMDL and implementation plan was approved for this water segment-pollutant combination by USEPA on 03/18/2004. 6. Analysis of the data, after USEPA approval of the TMDL and implementation of nitrification and denitrification, indicate that standards are being currently attained. 7. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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: | 30260 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 32 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 32 samples exceeded the pH and temperature dependent Basin Plan 30-day average objective for ammonia. The pH data used for this analysis ranged from 6.88- 8.22. The temperature data used for this analysis ranged from 16.7- 27.9 C. There were 32 pH and temperature data points corresponding to 32 ammonia samples used in this analysis. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for ammonia in accordance with the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant permit monitoring and testing parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states, "In order to protect aquatic life, ammonia concentrations in inland surface waters characteristic of freshwater shall not exceed the values calculated for the appropriate instream conditions shown in Tables 3-1 to 3-3." The one-hour average objective is dependent on pH and the presence or absence of early life stages of fish (ELS) but not temperature. The 30-day average objective is dependent on pH, temperature and ELS in Tables 3-1 to 3-3. The ammonia objectives and the pH and temperature dependent formulas are found in Attachment A of Regional Board Resolution No. 2002-011. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Basin Plan Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region Basin Plan 1997-2009 | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at three monitoring stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to river, R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to river, and RB01. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed on a monthly basis from November 2005 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and monitoring procedures detailed in Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (NPDES No. CA0054313) Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | New data was not submitted during the listing cycle that indicated that water quality standards are met. (SWAMP, 2004).
An alternative enforceable program is in place that will address ammonia water quality standards exceedances for this Reach. In June 1995, the seven water reclamation plants discharging in the San Gabriel River and Santa Clara River watersheds received NPDES permits containing requirements regarding compliance with the Basin Plan water quality objectives for ammonia. In accordance with these permits, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts have been pursuing the addition of nitrification and denitrification facilities at each of these plants to comply with the ammonia objectives. By June 2003, it is expected that these new facilities will be operational and ammonia will be drastically reduced. Research facility operation shows that the monthly average ammonia concentration fully complies with the chronic ammonia objective that are expected to be applicable in June 2003 (SWRCB, 2003). It is probable that the majority of ammonia discharged to this water body was contributed by POTWs. Information in the record indicates that the majority (over 95%) of the ammonia in the Los Angeles River was contributed by POTWs. It is probable that the contribution in the San Gabriel River watershed is dominated by contributions from POTWs as well. Generally, concentrations of ammonia upstream of the treatment plants is much lower than downstream concentrations (up to an order of magnitude difference). |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2133 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 43 samples exceeded the 30-day average water quality objective and none of 47 samples exceeded the one-hour average water quality objective (LACSD, 2004b; LACSD, 2006). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan Amendment 2003: The one-hour average objective is dependent on pH and the presence or absence of early life stages of fish (ELS) but not temperature. The 30-day average objective is dependent on pH, temperature and ELS [Tables 3-1 to 3-3]. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Two receiving water stations: RB and RB01. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from October 2003 through October 2005. New management practices were begun at the beginning of this period and may have resulted in a change in water quality. Water quality measurements collected before the implementation of management measures were not considered representative of current conditions. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
30345 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments |
| 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 4 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 the section 303(d) list under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, waters are listed when a bioassessment shows diminished numbers of species or other metrics (compared to a reference site) and it is associated with another pollutant. Eight lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Benthic macroinvertebrates as measured by Southern California IBI (index of biological integrity) in Santa Clara Reach 6 were poor in October of 2003 and poor in October of 2004 indicating impairment of benthic community structure. This impairment is associated with impairment for ammonia, chloride, chlorpyriphos, diazinon, copper, and iron. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to place the 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 at least one bioassessment sample (Index of Biological Integrity score) to satisfy Section 3.9 4. The impairment is associated with another pollutant in the waterbody to satisfy Section 3.9. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. State Board Review and Conclusion: The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report agreed that this water body should be placed on the 303(d) list for benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment based on the following: State Water Board staff used a situation-specific weight of evidence approach to evaluate the Los Angeles Water Board benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment listing. State Water Board staff determined that it is necessary to include these listings because additional data analyses and multiple line of evidence show that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of stressors. Using this approach staff followed a three-step process for evaluation of all available water quality data including the chemistry, bioassessment data and toxicity. In the first step, staff reviewed the Los Angeles Water Board data evaluation for bioassessment listing. In the second step, staff reviewed all other available bioassessment data because State Water Board staff learned that some data had not been considered for this listing decision by the Regional Water Board. In step 3 staff reviewed the chemistry water quality data available for chloride, cyanide, coliform bacteria, aluminum, lead, copper, and diazinon to determine the water quality condition in this water body segment. In step 1 and 2, State Water Board staff evaluated the bioassessment data using the Southern California index of biological integrity (IBI). Staff reviewed the line of evidence prepared by the Los Angeles Water Board and additional bioassessment data. Benthic macroinvertebrate as measured by Southern California IBI in Santa Clara River Reach 6 were poor in 2003 and 2004 indicating impairment of benthic community structure. In step 3, the chemistry data for chloride, cyanide, coliform bacteria, aluminum, lead, copper, and diazinon were evaluated by State Water Board staff. Data for chloride, chlorpyrifos, coliform bacteria, diazinon, and toxicity were evaluated in a previous listing cycle. Chloride, chlorpyrifos, coliform bacteria, diazinon, and toxicity showed impairment to the warm freshwater habitat, water contract recreation, and agricultural supply and it resulted in listing this water body in 1998 and 2006. In this step State Water Board staff evaluated the most recent available data for chloride, cyanide, coliform bacteria, aluminum, lead, copper, and diazinon. The data for chloride show that 2 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for cyanide show that 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for enterococcus show that 5 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for fecal coliform show that 4 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for total coliform show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for aluminum show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for lead show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for copper show that 5 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for diazinon show that 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The weight of evidence of the data and information indicate that the beneficial use of the water is not supported. The water quality chemistry and bioassessment data provide a substantial basis that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. Based on the available data and information, staff recommend to list for benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. In addition, one sample point originally assessed for Reach 6 has been reassessed for Santa Clara River Reach 5 in order to associate the data and information with the appropriate reach. 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 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's followup 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 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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 added to the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being attained. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | In step 3, the chemistry data for chloride, cyanide, coliform bacteria, aluminum, lead, copper, and diazinon were evaluated by State Water Board staff. Data for chloride, chlorpyrifos, coliform bacteria, diazinon, and toxicity were evaluated in a previous listing cycle. Chloride, chlorpyrifos, coliform bacteria, diazinon, and toxicity showed impairment to the warm freshwater habitat, water contract recreation, and agricultural supply and it resulted in listing this water body in 1998 and 2006. In this step State Water Board staff evaluated the most recent available data for chloride, cyanide, coliform bacteria, aluminum, lead, copper, and diazinon. The data for chloride show that 2 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for cyanide show that 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for enterococcus show that 5 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for fecal coliform show that 4 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for total coliform show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for aluminum show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for lead show that 3 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for copper show that 5 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The data for diazinon show that 1 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. The weight of evidence of the data and information indicate that the beneficial use of the water is not supported.
The water quality chemistry and bioassessment data provide a substantial basis that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. Based on the available data and information, staff recommend to list for benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. In addition, one sample point originally assessed for Reach 6 has been reassessed for Santa Clara River Reach 5 in order to associate the data and information with the appropriate reach. 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 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's followup 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 benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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: | 30228 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The IBI scores at this site ranked in the poor range (20 in 2003 and 19 in 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Los Angeles County 1994-2005 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. Section 9, Santa Clara River Watershed Management Area, pp 9.1 - 9.19. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan Objectives for Toxicity which states All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration or other appropraite methods as specified by the State or Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Basin Plan Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region Basin Plan 1997-2009 | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked according to very good (80-56), good (41-55), fair (27-40), poor (14-26) and very poor (0-13) habitat conditions. Sites with scores below 26 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Appendix 7-B Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493-504. | ||||
| Los Angeles County 1994-2005 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. Section 3, Methods, pp3.1 - 3.28 | |||||
| Los Angeles County 1994-2005 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. Section 9, Santa Clara River Watershed Management Area, pp 9.1 - 9.19. | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | One site in the Santa Clara was sampled at the 403STC-019 at N 34º 25.843 W 118º 35.652 . | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sites were sampled in October of 2003 and October of 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Benthic macroinvertebrate populations and IBI scores may also be affected by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams) California Department of Fish and Game Water Pollution Control Laboratory Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Revision Date - December, 2003 | ||||
| Los Angeles County 1994-2005 Integrated Receiving Water Impacts Report. Section 3, Methods, pp3.1 - 3.28 | |||||
DECISION ID |
22234 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) |
| 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 4 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. Two lines of evidence are 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 not sufficient justification for placing the 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 are zero of 15 MS4 samples that exceed the CTR human health for consumption of water and organisms and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. There are zero of 8 Saugus WWRP samples that exceed the CTR human health for consumption of water and organisms and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. 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 4 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 exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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: | 7857 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 15 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 15 samples exceeded the CTR human health for consumption of water and organisms. The data used was the monitoring data submitted as required by the Ventura County MS4 permit (NPDES # CAS004002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring Reports, containing Data for Physical, Water Quality, Biological Constituents, for the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR water quality standard for Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate: Human Health-freshwater (water & organisms) is 1.8 ppb. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at the Mass Emission Santa Clara River Monitoring Station (S29). Station S29 is located near Interstate 5 about 1.5 miles west of the confluence with San Francisquito Creek (Lat 34.42660, Long -118.58649). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed from October 2004 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Ventura County MS4 Permit Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and reporting program No. CI 7388 for Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002 | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30237 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of eight samples exceeded the CTR human health for consumption of water and organisms. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR water quality standard for Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate: Human Health-freshwater (water & organisms) is 1.8 ppb. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed on semi-annual basis from July 2004 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22490 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane |
| 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 4 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 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 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 eight samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Human Health Organism Consumption Criteria for chlorodibromomethane 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 4 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 4 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: | 8968 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorodibromomethane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of eight samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Human Health Organism Consumption Criteria for chlorodibromomethane. Water quality samples were taken for chlorodibromomethane in accordance with County Santitation Districts monitoring parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists a Human Health Organism Consumption Criteria of 34 ug/L for chlorodibromomethane to protect human health. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on quarterly basis from July 2004 to February 2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
DECISION ID |
22598 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Dichlorobromomethane |
| 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 4 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 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 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 eight samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Human Health Organism Consumption Criteria for dichlorobromomethane 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 4 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 4 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: | 8754 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dichlorobromomethane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of eight samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Human Health Criteria Organism Consumption Criteria for dichlorobromomethane. Water quality samples were taken for dichlorobromomethane in accordance with County Sanititation Districts monitoring parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists a Human Health Organism Consumption Criteria of 46 ug/L for dichlorobromomethane to protect human health. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on quarterly basis from July 2004 to February 2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
DECISION ID |
19520 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate and Nitrite |
| 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 4 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. Three lines of evidence are 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 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 of sample out of 51 exceeded the water quality objective. 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 4 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 4 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: | 2126 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate and Nitrite | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There is sufficient information to indicate that the nitrification/ denitrification process being installed at the Saugus WRP will address nitrite problem for this reach. | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2128 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate and Nitrite | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of 7 samples exceeded the site-specific objectives. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWCB Basin Plan: Water shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen plus nitrite-nitrogen as applicable for the protection of existing water quality conditions. [Table 3-8] | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sample site station RB. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Seven samples taken at monthly intervals from 9/10/03 to 5/12/04. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Data was collected over the period from September 2003 to May 2004. Receiving water station RB is located in Reach 6 of the Santa Clara River. The data presented are reflective of water quality conditions since the conversion to Nitrification\Denitrification mode of Districts' water reclamation plants discharging to the Santa Clara River. The Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, located in Reach 6, was fully converted to NDN mode on September 11, 2003. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance Document Of The County Sanitation Districts Of Los Angeles County. July 2003. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2127 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate and Nitrite | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 44 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Forty-four samples, 1 sample exceeding. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Los Angeles RWCB Basin Plan: Water shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen plus nitrite-nitrogen as applicable for the protection of existing water quality conditions. [Table 3-8] | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Three locations were sampled downstream of a point source. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data were collected quarterly from 1997 to 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Collection of data under quality assurance related to NPDES monitoring and RWQCB monitoring related to development of the nitrogen TMDL.NPDES monitoring and RWQCB sampling used to support the Nitrogen
TMDL. |
||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
19799 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate |
| 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 4 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The line of evidence documents the presence of the pollutant. However, there is no applicable guideline for phosphate that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient information to justify 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 there is no applicable guideline for this pollutant that meets the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Listing Policy and therefore it is not possible to determine any exceedances of the pollutant in this water body segment. 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 4 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 4 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: | 2136 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven water samples, 3 samples exceeding. Surface water data presented within the report "Water Quality in the Calleguas Creek and Santa Clara River Watersheds Under the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Fiscal Year 2000-2001" as prepared by the Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory Moss Landing Marine Laboratories for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (SWAMP, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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: | USEPA recommended limit (0.01 mg/l), 1986. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Four stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2002 through April 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Santa Clara River Reach 6 monitoring stations are located between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22306 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductance |
| 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 4 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. Three lines of evidence are 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 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 of eight SWAMP samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Zero of 20 MS4 samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 5. One of 68 Saugus Water Reclamation Plant samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 6. 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 4 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 4 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: | 7962 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Subgroup Missing | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of eight samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for specific conductance. Water quality samples were taken for specific conductance in accordance with regional SWAMP Monitoring parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program data for all watersheds in the Los Angeles Region 2001-2005. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for specific conductance is 1588 umhos/cm. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at four SWAMP stations: 403STC019 (Lat: 34.42611, Long: -118.57915), 403STC027 (Lat: 34.54669, Long: -118.43391), 403STCBQT (Lat: 34.42809, Long: -118.54021), 403STCSFO (Lat: 34.5273, Long: -118.52908). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken on 10/31/2001 at monitoring stations 403STC019, 403STCBQT, and 403STCSFO; on 02/25/2003 at monitoring stations 403STC019; on 11/13/2001 and 02/24/2003 at monitoring station 403STC027; and on 11/15/2001 and 01/13/2003 at monitoring station 403STCBQT. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and monitoring procedures detailed in State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Management Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30232 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Subgroup Missing | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 68 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 1 out of 68 samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The data used was the monitoring data submitted as required by the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for specific conductance is 1588 umhos/cm. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed on monthly basis from June 2004 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30231 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductance | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Subgroup Missing | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of zero out of 20 samples exceeded the Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The data used was the monitoring data submitted as required by the Ventura County MS4 permit (NPDES # CAS004002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring Reports, containing Data for Physical, Water Quality, Biological Constituents, for the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Agricultural Water Quality Goals published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations for specific conductance is 1588 umhos/cm. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality for Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev 1, Rome (1985) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at the Mass Emission Santa Clara River Monitoring Station (S29). Station S29 is located near Interstate 5 about 1.5 miles west of the confluence with San Francisquito Creek (Lat 34.42660, Long -118.58649). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | 21 grab samples were taken and analyzed from October 31, 2003 to April 2, 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Ventura County MS4 Permit Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and reporting program No. CI 7388 for Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002 | ||||
DECISION ID |
19187 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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 4 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the CDFG Chlorpyrifos 0.05 mg/L four day average aquatic life toxicity guideline. 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. Ten of 39 samples exceeded the CDFG 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 4 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 4 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: | 2134 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 39 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirty-nine water samples, 10 samples exceeding the 4 day average. All exceedances were from Station STCBQT (SWAMP, 2004; LACDPW, 2003a; Newhall Land and Farming Co., 2006). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Aquatic life toxicity one hour average: 0.08 mg/l and 4 day average: 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The Santa Clara River Reach 6 monitoring stations are located between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2002 through April 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
20536 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Coliform 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: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 4 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 4 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 4 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: | 4157 | ||||
| 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 |
22175 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| 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 4 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 3.1 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. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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 of 20 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration for copper in the dissolved fraction and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. One of 39 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration for copper in the total fraction and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. State Board Review and Conclusion: State Board staff concurs with the Regional Board that the copper dissolved fraction data are more temporally representative of conditions in the water body and more reliable than the total fraction data. No change to the decision is being recommended. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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 for copper in the dissolved fraction. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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: | 7838 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 20 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule Criterion Continuous Concentration for copper. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for copper in accordance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit monitoring and testing parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring Reports, containing Data for Physical, Water Quality, Biological Constituents, for the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists Criterion Maximum Concentrations and Criterion Continuous Concentrations for copper to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The copper criteria in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for metals criteria. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at the Mass Emission Santa Clara River Monitoring Station (S29). Station S29 is located near Interstate 5 about 1.5 miles west of the confluence with San Francisquito Creek (Lat 34.42660, Long -118.58649). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed from October 31, 2003 to April 2, 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and monitoring procedures detailed in County of Ventura MS4 Permit (NPDES No. CAS004002) Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and reporting program No. CI 7388 for Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002 | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30234 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife 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: | One of 39 samples for dissolved copper exceeded the CTR Freshwater chronic criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists Criterion Continuous Concentrations for copper to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The copper criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for metals criterion. | ||||
| 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: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed from June 2004 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with Saugus WWRP MRP. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
DECISION ID |
30441 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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 4 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 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the CDFG Diazinon Aquatic life toxicity guidelines of 0.08 mg/L one hour average and the 0.05 mg/L 4 day average. 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-eight of 29 samples exceeded the CDFG guidelines 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 4 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 4 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: | 2135 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 29 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 28 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-eight of 29 samples exceed the guideline (SWAMP, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | CDFG Hazard Assessment Criteria 0.16 ug/L 1-hour average (acute), 0.10 ug/L 4-day (chronic) average (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Six stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from August 2002 through April 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Santa Clara River Reach 6 monitoring stations are located between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
22587 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| 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 4 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. Two lines of evidence are 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 for 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 of 29 MS4 samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of ten Saugus Water Reclamation Plant samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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 4 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: | 30236 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 10 samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054313) and Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054216). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection is 1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at two stations:
R-A Santa Clara River approximately 300 feet upstream of point of discharge 001 to River R-B Santa Clara River approximately 100 feet downstream of point of discharge 001 to River. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed from July 2004 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Monitoring and Reporting Program, No. CI-2960, for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Saugus Water Reclamation Plant, (NPDES NO. CA0054313). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7849 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Freshwater Replenishment | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 20 samples exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring Reports, containing Data for Physical, Water Quality, Biological Constituents, for the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Aquatic Life Protection is 1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken at the Mass Emission Santa Clara River Monitoring Station (S29). Station S29 is located near Interstate 5 about 1.5 miles west of the confluence with San Francisquito Creek (Lat 34.42660, Long -118.58649). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed from October 2003 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality assurance information is described in the Ventura County MS4 Permit Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and reporting program No. CI 7388 for Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Discharges for Ventura County Flood Control District, County of Ventura, and the cities of Ventura County NPDES Permit No. CAS004002 | ||||
DECISION ID |
19378 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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 4 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a water segment can be placed on the 303(d) list if the water segment exhibits significant toxicity and the observed toxicity is associated with a pollutant or pollutants. The water body segment may also be listed for toxicity alone. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia test and thus the narrative 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. Four of 4 samples exhibited significant Ceriodaphnia toxicity 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 4 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 4 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: | 2137 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of 4 toxicity samples with significant results compared to negative control based on statistical test, alpha of less than 5%, and less than the evaluation threshold (SWAMP, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, toxicity bioassays of appropriate duration shall determine compliance with this objective, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity samples tests using the 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia test. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One station located at 34.42782 -118.54022. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken in November 2001, February 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Santa Clara River Reach 6 monitoring stations are located between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
18056 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Reach 6 (W Pier Hwy 99 to Bouquet Cyn Rd) (was named Santa Clara River Reach 8 on 2002 303(d) list) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| 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)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Nonpoint Source | Point Source |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Chloride |
| TMDL Project Code: | 226 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/28/2005 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 4 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 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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the applicable factor, a TMDL has been developed by the RWQCB and was approved by USEPA. The Santa Clara River Chloride TMDL was approved by SWRCB in July 2004 and subsequently approved by the Office of Administrative Law on November 15, 2004. USEPA approved the TMDL on April 28, 2005. 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 in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 4 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 4 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: | 2125 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| 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): | |||||