| Water Body Name: | Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
| Water Body ID: | CAB4051200020110406220109 |
| Water Body Type: | Bay & Harbor |
DECISION ID |
62244 |
Region 4 |
Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 4 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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: | 83969 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were tested for toxicity. None of the four samples exhibited statistically significant effect relative to control. The toxicity test used was the mussel embryo development test (EPA 1995 ) using Mytilus galloprovincialis. Toxic effects are expressed as percent reduction in normal development relative to controls. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing (parametric Dunnett's Test or non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon Two-sample Test). The t-test is used to determine if there is a statistically significant decrease in organism response in the sample as compared to the control. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms. EPA/600/R-95-136. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected inDowntown Shoreline Marina 1.2, 2.2, 3.2, and 4.2. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 8/29/2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. The data and QA information is provided in Apendix G and I to the report Monitoring For Indicators of Antifouling Paint Pollution In California Marinas, Department of Pesticide Regulation. The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project laboratory conducted the toxicity tests. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
62245 |
Region 4 |
Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| 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 are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 3 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 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: | 83970 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the three samples exceeded the CTR of 81 ug/L for dissolved zinc in saltwater. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in saline water. The CTR value is 81 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | A total of four separate grab samples were collected from inside the marina basin (Sites 1, 2, 3, & 4). Sample results were averaged per sample event, resulting in one sample result per sampling event. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during the dry season only. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/qapp_study236.pdf) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
62247 |
Region 4 |
Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 12 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. 0 of 12 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 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: | 83968 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 12 minimums and maximums had no exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| 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. | ||||
| 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: Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.3 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected twice in August 2006 and once in September 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
62243 |
Region 4 |
Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| 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. 3 of 3 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. 3 of 3 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: | 83963 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All three of the samples exceeded the CTR value of 3.1 ug/L for dissolved copper in saltwater. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in marine waters. The CTR value is 3.1 ug/L for dissolved copper in saltwater. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | A total of eight grab samples were collected during each sample event from inside the marina (Sites 1, 2, 3, & 4). Sample results were averaged per sample event, resulting in one sample result per sampling event. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during the dry season only. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/qapp_study236.pdf) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
62242 |
Region 4 |
Downtown Shoreline Marina (part of San Pedro Bay Near/Off Shore Zones) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 6 of 12 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. 6 of 12 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: | 83964 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Marine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 12 minimums of Dissolved Oxygen concentrations had 6 exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For that area known as the Outer Harbor area of Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, the mean annual dissolved oxygen concentrations shall be 6.0 mg/L or greater, provided that no single determination shall be less than 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
| 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: Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 1.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 2.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 3.3 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.1 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.2 Downtown Shoreline Marina 4.3 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected twice in August 2006 and once in September 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||