| Water Body Name: | Santa Clara River Estuary |
| Water Body ID: | CAE4031100020000229171211 |
| Water Body Type: | Estuary |
DECISION ID |
67452 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. However, there is no guideline or objective that can be used to evaluate the data for exceedences. 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 CWA 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 no guideline or objective that can be used to evaluate the data for exceedences that can be compared with 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 Staff Decision Recommendation: | 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96070 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples were collected for phosphate. However, there is no guideline or objective that can be used to evaluate the data for exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data from the Ventura Coastkeeper, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | |||||
| 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at the following location:
SC-01 Vent WRF (Ventura WRF Outfall to Estuary) |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: January 2010 to August 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Wishtoyo Foundation volunteer monitoring QAPP was provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Wishtoyo Foundation. | ||||
DECISION ID |
66592 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Trash |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.7 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.7 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 5 samples exceeded the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 5 samples exceed the numeric target of zero (Los Angeles River Trash TMDL). 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 Staff Decision Recommendation: | 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 88250 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 of the 5 samples exceeded the guideline for trash. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data from the Ventura Coastkeeper, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Los Angeles RWQCB Basin Plan: Waters shall not contain floating materials, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Narrative objective evaluated using numeric target of zero trash in Los Angeles River Trash TMDL and other regional trash TMDLs. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Trash Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Los Angeles River Watershed Revised Draft Staff Report. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. July 27, 2007. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Area surveyed was SC-01 Vent WRF (Ventura WRF Outfall to Estuary). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Trash collections were performed on 2/26/2010, 6/25/2010, 7/17/2010, and 8/15/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Wishtoyo Foundation volunteer monitoring QAPP was provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Wishtoyo Foundation. | ||||
DECISION ID |
66589 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 4 of 42 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 4 of 42 samples exceeded the CRITERIA 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 Staff Decision Recommendation: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 88237 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 42 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 4 of 42 samples exceed the one-hour average concentration of 0.233 mg un-ionized NH3/L. 18 of the 42 data are reported as non-detects. These non-detects are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants from the city of Ventura, 1997-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (Basin Plain): For waters in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 parts per thousand 95% or more of the time, the applicable objectives are a 4-day average concentration of 0.035 mg un-ionized NH3/L and a one-hour average concentration of 0.233 mg un-ionized NH3/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at EL1 (Lower Estuary main channel), EL2 (Lower Estuary at mouth), EM1 (Middle Estuary main channel), EM2 (Middle Estuary d/s of VWRF Outfall), EU1 (Upper Estuary main channel (d/s of Harbor Blvd. Bridge), EU2 (Upper Estuary high-flow channel), EU3 (Upper Estuary d/s of VWRF Outfall). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 9/1/2009 to 11/17/2009 and from 1/27/2010 to 7/27/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | A signed QAPP was not submitted. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
66591 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 149 of 498 samples exceeded the 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 149 of 498 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96039 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 5 samples exceed the objective for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants from Wishtoyo Foundation's Ventura Coastkeeper, 2009-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of bays or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. (Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at site SC-01 Vent WRF (Ventura WRF Outfall to Estuary) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates:
1/29/2010, 2/26/2010, 6/25/2010, 7/17/2010, 8/15/2010 |
||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Wishtoyo Foundation volunteer monitoring QAPP was provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from Wishtoyo Foundation. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 88249 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 493 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 149 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One hundred and forty nine of the 493 samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants from the city of Ventura, 1997-2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of all inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following stations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 C-1 C-2 C-3 E-L1 E-L2 E-M1 E-M2 E-U1 E-U2 E-U3 MTS-2 MTS-2 MTS-2 (MZ-1) MTS-2 (MZ-6) MTS-3 MTS-3 (MZ-3) MTS-3 (MZ-7) MTS-R MTS-R (MZ-R) MZ-1 MZ-2 MZ-3 MZ-4 MZ-5 MZ-5b MZ-6 R2 R3 R4 R5 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately twice a month from October 1997 to May 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
34243 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | ChemA |
| 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 (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Estuary (33) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 379 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 09/21/2011 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database.
There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Clara River Toxaphene TMDL was approved by USEPA on 09/21/2011 |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4153 | ||||
| Pollutant: | ChemA | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
35722 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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 (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Coliform (23b & 34) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 380 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/31/2012 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database.
There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Clara River Bacteria TMDL was approved by USEPA on 01/31/2012. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4154 | ||||
| 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 |
35380 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
| 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 (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Nitrogen (32) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 227 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/23/2004 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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. 56 of 288 samples exceeded the Los Angeles Region Basin Plan water quality objects for nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) 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 met. There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Clara River Nutrients TMDL was approved by USEPA on 03/23/2004. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7819 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 288 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 56 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 56 of 288 samples exceed Basin Plan standards. Monthly ambient water quality samples for nitrate were taken in compliance with the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility NDPES permit monitoring requirements. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for the City of San Buenaventura Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (NPDES No. CA0053651). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that "...waters shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N)..." | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The listed monitoring stations for this water body pollutant combination include: R1 located at the south shoreline, R2 located at South Shoreline, R3 located at the west shoreline, R4 located at West shoreline near the point of surface discharge or tidal inflow/outflow at shoreline, and L5 located at the northwest shoreline. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on monthly basis from January 2002 to February 2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and reporting program for NPDES No. CA0053651 | ||||
DECISION ID |
36274 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| 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 (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Santa Clara River Estuary (33) |
| TMDL Project Code: | 379 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 09/21/2011 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database.
There is sufficient justification to place this waterbody/pollutant in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The Santa Clara River Toxaphene TMDL was approved by USEPA on 09/21/2011. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4155 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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 |
36060 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff 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 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. Zero of one SWAMP sample exceed the CTR chronic criteria for saltwater and there are insufficient data to evaluate whether this exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Two of 63 Ventura WRF samples exceed the CTR chronic criteria for saltwater and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 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 not met. |
| Regional Board Staff Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30238 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of one samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule saltwater Chronic Criteria for Arsenic. | ||||
| 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 California Toxics Rule lists a Chronic Criteria of 36 ug/L for Arsenic to protect aquatic life in saltwater. | ||||
| 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: | One monitoring station: 403STCEST. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples taken and analyzed on 11/14/2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with SWAMP. | ||||
| 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: | 7549 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 63 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of 63 samples exceeded the California Toxics Rule saltwater Chronic Criteria for Arsenic. Semi-annual ambient water quality samples for Arsenic were taken in compliance with the Ventura Water Reclamation Facility NDPES permit monitoring requirements. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for the City of San Buenaventura Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (NPDES No. CA0053651). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists a Chronic Criteria of 36 ug/L for Arsenic to protect aquatic life in saltwater. | ||||
| 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: | The listed monitoring stations for this water body pollutant combination include: R1 located at the south shoreline, R3 located at the west shoreline, and L5 located at the northwest shoreline. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on semi-annual basis from February 2002 to February 2007 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and reporting program for NPDES No. CA0053651 | ||||
DECISION ID |
35422 |
Region 4 |
Santa Clara River Estuary |
||
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Staff Conclusion: | 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 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 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 6.1.3 of the 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. 67 of 150 samples exceed the water quality objective from the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties 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 Staff Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7834 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 150 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 67 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 67 of 150 samples exceeded the water quality objective from the Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. | ||||
| Data Reference: | NPDES receiving water monitoring reports for the City of San Buenaventura Ventura Water Reclamation Facility (NPDES No. CA0053651). | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states at there shall be no acute or chronic toxicity in ambient waters outside mixing zones. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity was defined as a reduction of the NOEC below 100% and was considered significant if the effect on the sample exposure was greater than 25%. Chronic toxicity is further expressed as toxic units (TUc), where TUc = 100/NOEC
The No Observable Effect Concentration (NOEC) is expressed as the maximum percent of receiving water that causes no observable effect on a test organism, as determined by the result of a critical life stage toxicity test. The NOEC is defined, in (USEPA, 2002) as the The lowest concentration of toxicant to which organisms are exposed in a life-cycle or partial life-cycle (short-term) test, which causes adverse effects on the test organisms (i.e., where the values for the observed responses are statistically significantly different from the controls). |
||||
| Guideline Reference: | FINAL Calleguas Creek Watershed Toxicity, Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon TMDL Technical Report. 2005. Submitted to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. Prepared by Larry Walker Associates on behalf of the Calleguas Creek Watershed Management Plan. June 21, 2005. | ||||
| Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fourth Edition. EPA 600/4-90/27. | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The listed monitoring stations for this water body pollutant combination include: R1 located at the south shoreline, R3 located at the west shoreline, and L5 located at the northwest shoreline. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Grab samples were taken and analyzed on semi-annual basis from January 2002 to February 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Ventura Water Reclamation Facility Monitoring and reporting program for NPDES No. CA0053651 | ||||