| Water Body Name: | San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4051501019980917144356 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
18482 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| 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 delisting under sections 4.8 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.8 delisting is appropriate when documented adverse biological responses are not associated with water or sediment numeric pollutant specific evaluation guidelines. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on section 4.8, adverse biological responses have been documented in fish taken from the site. Although a small portion of the fish collected exhibited impacts from toxicity, the majority of the fish samples collected from the San Gabriel River and its tributaries were victims of infectious disease. Therefore there is insufficient information to conclude that the documented adverse biological responses are associated with specific pollutant(s). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The sediment quality guideline used complies, with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. The majority of the fish collected showed adverse biological responses are associated with infectious disease and not due to pollutant caused toxicity. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 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. |
| 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: | 2452 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| 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: | San Gabriel River Tidal Prism at Confluence of Coyote Creek (LACSD, 2004b).
A total of 21 tilapia (Tilapia sp.) were collected at this site. Extensive inflammation of nerve tissue was observed. The cells in question were associated with a swollen feature of the nerve indicating damage. The frequency of this abnormality was 33%. Gill necrosis was observed in 3 of the animals studied. The frequency for this lesion was 14%. Skin necrosis was found in 2 of the 21 animals observed. One gut parasite was found and appeared to be a tapeworm. San Gabriel River Tidal Prism at College Park Drive (LACSD, 2004b). A total of 30 tilapia (Tilapia sp.) and 1 white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) were examined from this site. Histopathologic examination revealed severe inflammation in the stomach. The white croaker showed mild inflammation in the liver and inflammatory response in the wall of the heart. In the 30 tilapia, fairly consistent nerve inflammation were observed. The frequency of this lesion was 30%. Inflammation of the liver were also observed. The frequency for this change was 13%. A large skin lesion was observed on one tilapia. One fish showed a parasite within the gut. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological response in, human, plant, 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 appropriate methods as specified by the State or Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | With a prior knowledge of normal fish anatomy, the investigators used histological analysis to detect alterations in tissues and organs caused by exposure to toxicants. When the concentration of a toxicant is sufficient to result only in cellular injury, but not in death of the cells, sublethal (adaptive) changes may be observed in affected cells.
A combination of the necropsy-based approach and the histological condition index was used in this study. Alterations from the expected normal gross anatomy and microscopic anatomy of resident fishes, fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), goldfish (Cyprinus carpio), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus) mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), and tilapia (Tilapia sp.) were included in the investigation. Lesions were compared to reference populations. |
||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Fish were collected from four sites in the lower San Gabriel River watershed. The sites included Coyote Creek above and below the Long Beach wastewater treatment plant outfall, the San Gabriel River at the confluence of Coyote Creek, and from the tidal prism at College Park Drive. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between 1992 and 1993. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Assurance and methods well described in the report: "Toxicity study of the Santa Clara, San Gabriel River, and Calleguas Creek" (Bailey et al., 1996 in LACSD, 2004b). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2451 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Abnormal Fish Histology (Lesions) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | This evaluation of data came from the report: "Toxicity study of the Santa Clara, San Gabriel River, and Calleguas Creek" (Bailey et al., 1996 in LACSD, 2004b).Toxicity Identification Evaluations were completed and it was suggested that diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and ammonia were the cause of the toxicity. Studies of upstream and downstream sites in the San Gabriel River Tidal Prism revealed toxicity. Inflammatory lesions were prevalent at about 30% in fish from both sites. Gill toxicity reactions were seen at equal frequency. In the upper site, only two fish showed extensive tubular epithelial hyalinization of kidney while 5 of their counterparts from the lower site were positive for the same lesion. In addition, the lesions had advanced in the downstream affected fish to the point at which tubular deposits of calcium were prominent in two fish. Heart ventricle also showed mineralization, a likely sequel to systemic infection. Skin necrosis, likely a direct result of toxicity in the water column characterized two of the 30 fish at the lower site.
The analysis of fish collected from the San Gabriel River and its tributaries suggests that a sizeable portion of the individuals are victims of infectious disease and a smaller portion reveal signs of toxicity. These are not healthy fish and their tissue conditions do not resemble those of fishes from reference habitats previously investigated by this group. |
||||
| 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
18677 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | Excess Algal Growth |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| 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 4.7 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.7 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. It is not known if the algae information is backed by pollutant data. Algae should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it is not a pollutant or toxicity (section 2 of the Listing Policy). One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples were judged to exceed a subjective algae ranking guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. Two of 4 samples exceeded the Subjective algae guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 2. Excess algae growth information should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it is not a pollutant or toxicity (section 2 of the Listing Policy). 3. Pursuant to section 4.11 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. |
| 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: | 2453 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Excess Algal Growth | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four observations with 2 of the observations judged to be not supporting beneficial uses (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growth causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The presence of algae in the water segment was used as the guideline. The rankings were subjective and assigned to water bodies by one person for consistency. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sampling location. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Observations made between 1992 and 1995. Samples taken in different seasons and no greater than two time within one year. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No QA information provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
18489 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; reason for recovery unspecified |
| 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 delisting under sections 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.6 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 section 4.6, the site does not have significant water toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The sediment quality guideline used complies, with the requirements of section 6.1.3 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. None of the 46 samples exceeded the NOEC indicating that the receiving water was not toxic and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 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. |
| 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: | 2450 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric toxicity results generated from a total of ten samples none of which were found to be toxic. This was a collaborative toxicity study conducted by the U.S. EPA and the Districts in August through October 2003. The study generated a total of 16 samples taken for Reach 1. Six (6) samples were taken in August 2003 (2 from R-3-1, 2 from R-4, and 2 from R-9W), 4 samples were taken in September 2003 (2 from R-3- 1, 2 from R-4, and 1 from R-9W) and 6 samples were taken in October 2003 (2 from R-3-1, 2 from R-4, and 2 from R-9W). The August 2003, sampling results (6 samples) were excluded from analysis due a short-term operational upset that occurred while sampling was being carried out in the San Jose Creek WRP located within Reach 1 (LACSD, 2004b). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin plan narrative toxicity WQO. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | No observed effect concentration (NOEC) is the highest tested concentration of toxicant to which organisms are exposed in a full life-cycle or partial life-cycle (shot-term) test that causes no observable adverse effect on the test organisms. The guideline is used and recommended to determine the highest concentration of toxicant at which the values of the observed responses are not statistically significantly different from the control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Three (3) sample sites sampled from 8/2003 through 10/2003 at a monthly interval. Station R-3-1 is located towards the upstream end of Reach 1, upstream of the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). Receiving water station R-4 is located downstream of the discharge of the Los Coyotes WRP. Receiving water station R-9W is located at the lower end of Reach 1, just upstream of the San Gabriel River Estuary. All sampling stations are all located in Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | A total of 16 samples were taken, six (6) samples were taken in August 2003 (2 from R-3-1, 2 from R-4, and 2 from R-9W), 4 samples were taken in September 2003 (2 from R-3- 1, 2 from R-4, and 1 from R-9W) and 6 samples were taken in October 2003 (2 from R-3-1, 2 from R-4, and 2 from R-9W). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Data is one year old. The August 2003, sampling results (6 samples) were excluded from analysis due a short-term operational upset that occurred while sampling was being carried out in the San Jose Creek WRP located within Reach 1. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Evaluation of Analytes and QA/QC Specifications for Monitoring Program (Woodward-Clyde, 1996) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2449 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 36 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from a total of 36 samples (12 samples per sampling stations) from Reach 1 stations R-1-3-1, R-9, and R-9 W respectively, taken from 6/2003 to 5/2004 on a monthly interval. No adverse effects (100 percent survival and growth) were observed in all toxicity results from all three sampling stations (LACSD, 2004b). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Narrative Toxicity Basin Plan WQO is applicable to the protection of aquatic life BUs. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | No observed effect concentration (NOEC) is the highest tested concentration of toxicant to which organisms are exposed in a full life-cycle or partial life-cycle (shot-term) test that causes no observable adverse effect on the test organisms. The guideline is used and recommended to determine the highest concentration of toxicant at which the values of the observed responses are not statistically significantly different from the control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Three (3) sample sites sampled from 6/2003 through 5/2004 at a monthly interval. Station R-3-1 is located towards the upstream end of Reach 1, upstream of the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (WRP). Receiving water station R-4 is located downstream of the discharge of the Los Coyotes WRP. Receiving water station R-9W is located at the lower end of Reach 1, just upstream of the San Gabriel River Estuary. All sampling stations are all located in Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Thirty-six (36) samples where taken from 6/2003 through 5/2004 at a monthly interval from three sampling stations within Reach 1 of the San Gabriel River. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The submitted toxicity results are from 2003-04. In June 2003, the LA County Sanitation Districts completed conversion of water reclamation plants in the San Gabriel River watershed to nitrification/denitrification (NDN) mode. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Evaluation of Analytes and QA/QC Specifications for Monitoring Program (Woodward-Clyde, 1996) Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
24200 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | Coliform Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 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 removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.3 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 against 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. 55 of 386 samples exceeded the Basin Plan single sample water quality objectives for indicator bacteria in fresh water and 28 out of 82 samples exceeded the Basin Plan geometric mean water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 4146 | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25294 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 386 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 55 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Other Agencies/Organizations provided monitoring data | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 55 of 386 samples exceeded the Basin Plan single sample water quality objectives for indicator bacteria in fresh water and 28 of 82 samples exceeded the Basin Plan geometric mean water quality objective. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for indicator bacteria in accordance with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County permit monitoring and testing parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054119), Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053716), Pomona Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053911), San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053619), and Whittier Narrows Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054011). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan bacteria objectives state that to protect water contact recreation in fresh waters individual samples shall not exceed the following limits: fecal coliform density shall not exceed 400/100 ml; and E. coli density shall not exceed 235/100 ml. The bacteria objectives also establish that the geometric means of individual samples shall not exceed the following limits: the fecal coliform density shall not exceed 200/100 ml; and the E. coli density shall not exceed 126/100 ml, as a geometric mean. The bacteria objectives are found in Attachment A of Regional Board Resolution No. 2001-018. | ||||
| 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: | The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County conducted sampling in San Gabriel River Reach 1 in the following receiving water monitoring stations: station RA2 located downstream of the confluence of the eastern and western low flow channel; station R31 located 100 feet upstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; station R4 located at Artesia Boulevard, downstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; and station R9W located at at the downstream end of the pavement lining (near Atherton Street) in the western low flow channel. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on a weekly and monthly basis from June 2004 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. CA0054119) Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program for NPDES No. CA0054119 (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County) | ||||
DECISION ID |
18887 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2009 |
| 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 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section 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 against 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. 205 of 675 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objectives for pH in inland surface water bodies and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| 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 removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 2454 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 284 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 85 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eighty-five samples of 284 total samples exceed the pH objective (LACSD, 2004b). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The pH of inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. Ambient pH levels shall not be changed more than 0.5 units from natural conditions as a result of waste discharge. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Six stations. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Measurements were taken weekly between June 2003 and November 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 25299 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 391 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 120 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 120 of 391 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objectives for pH in inland surface water bodies. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for pH in accordance with the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County permit monitoring and testing parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054119), Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053716), Pomona Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053911), San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053619), and Whittier Narrows Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054011). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states, "pH of inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of wastes discharges." | ||||
| 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: | The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County conducted sampling in San Gabriel River Reach 1 in the following receiving water monitoring stations: station R2 located near Firestone Boulevard; station R31 located 100 feet upstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; station R4 located at Artesia Boulevard, downstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; and station R9W located at at the downstream end of the pavement lining (near Atherton Street) in the western low flow channel. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on a daily and weekly basis from December 2004 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. CA0054119) Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program for NPDES No. CA0054119 (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County) | ||||
DECISION ID |
18113 |
Region 4 |
San Gabriel River Reach 1 (Estuary to Firestone) |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| 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. A remedial program other than a TMDL has been developed, approved, and is being implemented. This program is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list during the 2002 listing cycle. 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. Nine of 173 samples exceed the 30-day average objective for ammonia and zero of 703 samples exceed the one-hour average objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 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: | 2448 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 113 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of 113 samples exceed the 30-day average water quality objective and none of 458 samples exceed the one-hour average water quality objective (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: | Four stations were sampled. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from June 2003 through November 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26853 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 60 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three of 60 samples exceeded the one-hour objective and zero of 245 samples exceeded 30-day average objective for ammonia. All samples analyzed against the acute and chronic criteria had available pH and temperature data which was used to calculate the criteria. The temperature ranged from 19.9 to 30.2 C and the pH ranged from 7.0 to 9.9. Water quality samples were taken and analyzed for ammonia in accordance with the Long Beach Waste Water Reclamation Plant permit monitoring and testing parameters. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054119), Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053716), Pomona Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053911), San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0053619), and Whittier Narrows Creek Water Reclamation Plant (NPDES No. CA0054011). | ||||
| 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 formula 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: | The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County conducted sampling in San Gabriel River Reach 1 in the following receiving water monitoring stations: station R2 located near Firestone Boulevard; station R31 located 100 feet upstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; station R4 located at Artesia Boulevard, downstream of the Los Coyotes discharge point; and station R9W located at at the downstream end of the pavement lining (near Atherton Street) in the western low flow channel. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on a weekly basis from December 2005 to January 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. CA0054119) Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Long Beach Water Reclamation Plant Monitoring and Reporting Program for NPDES No. CA0054119 (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2447 | ||||
| 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: | 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 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 will fully comply with the chronic ammonia objective that are expected to be applicable in June 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: | 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): | |||||