Water Body Name: | Malibu Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR4042100019990201132825 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
13730 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Copper, Dissolved |
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 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.
1 line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the samples exceed the water quality 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 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. 0 of 59 samples exceeded the the dissolved copper CTR-CMC and CTR-CCC guidelines, 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: | 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 Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 26028 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | Fish Migration | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 59 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data collected as part of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works MS4 monitoring reports (1998-2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Monitoring Report (MS4 Data) - CI 6948 for order no. 01-182 NPDES No. CAS004001 Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles, and the Incorporated Cities therein, Except the City of Long Beach | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxics Rule lists Criterion Maximum Concentrations for Copper to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The copper criterion for each sample in freshwater is hardness dependent and varies based on the on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent criterion formula for metals. | ||||
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: | Malibu Creek Monitoring Station (S02) is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road (Lat 34.07540, Long -118.70317). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Approximately six composite samples were collected per year (four wet-weather events and two dry-weather events), from October 1998 through April 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data collected for compliance with NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program - CI 6948 for order no. 01-182 NPDES No. CAS004001 Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los Angeles, and the incorporated cities, except the City of Long Beach | ||||
DECISION ID |
16265 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
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 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 are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality 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 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 samples exhibited significant toxicity to Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of one sample is needed for application of 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 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 because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 27829 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of one sample exhibited significant toxicity to Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia. A sample was taken and test on Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia dubia for acute and chronic toxicity. | ||||
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 Basin Plan states that 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 statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA recommended hypothesis testing (parametric Dunnett's Test or non-parametric Fisher's Exact Test). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 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: | Samples were taken in the Malibu Creek at monitoring station, 404SMB061 (Lat 34.04255, Long -118.68431). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken on 03/12/03 as part of the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with the sampling and monitoring procedures detailed in State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Management Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
17209 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments |
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: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant is being considered for the section 303(d) list under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, waters are listed when a bioassessment shows diminished numbers of species or other metrics (compared to a reference site) and it is associated with another pollutant. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Benthic macroinvertebrates as measured by Southern California IBI (index of biological integrity) in Malibu Creek were poor at one site in winter of 2005 and poor at two sites in spring and fall of 2005 indicating impairment of benthic community structure. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification to place the water segment in category 4C on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. There is at least one bioassessment sample (Index of Biological Integrity score) to satisfy Section 3.9. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. State Board Review and Conclusion: State Water Board staff used a situation-specific weight of evidence approach to evaluate the Los Angeles Water Board benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment listing. State Water Board staff determined that it is necessary to include these listings because additional data analyses and multiple line of evidence show that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of stressors. Using this approach staff followed a three-step process for evaluation of all available water quality data including the chemistry, bioassessment data and toxicity. In the first step, staff reviewed the Los Angeles Water Board data evaluation for bioassessment listing. In the second step, staff reviewed all other available bioassessment data because State Water Board staff learned that some data had not been considered for this listing decision by the Regional Water Board. In step 3 staff reviewed the chemistry water quality data available for total nitrogen and total phosphorus to determine the water quality condition in this water body segment. In step 1 and 2, State Water Board staff evaluated the bioassessment data using the Southern California index of biological integrity (IBI). Staff reviewed the line of evidence prepared by the Los Angeles Water Board and additional bioassessment data. Benthic macroinvertebrate as measured by Southern California IBI in Malibu Creek were poor in year 2005 indicating impairment of benthic community structure. In step 3, the chemistry data for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were evaluated by State Water Board staff. Data for coliform bacteria, fish barriers (fish passage), invasive species, nutrients (algae), scum/foam-unnatural, sedimentation/siltation, selenium, sulfates, and trash were evaluated in a previous listing cycle. Coliform bacteria, fish barriers (fish passage), invasive species, nutrients (algae), scum/foam-unnatural, sedimentation/siltation, selenium, sulfates, and trash showed impairment to the warm freshwater habitat, municipal and domestic supply, non-contact recreation, and water contact recreation and it resulted in listing this water body in 1996, 2002, 2006, and 2008. In this step State Water Board staff evaluated the most recent available data for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The data for total nitrogen show exceedances of the water quality objective. The data for total phosphorus show exceedances of the water quality objective. The weight of evidence of the data and information indicate that the beneficial use of the water is not supported. The water quality chemistry and bioassessment data provide a substantial basis that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. Based on the available data and information, staff recommend to list for benthic macroinvertebrate-bioassessment. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being attained. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The water quality chemistry and bioassessment data provide a substantial basis that benthic macroinvertebrate populations are impacted by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. Based on the available data and information, staff recommend to list for benthic macroinvertebrate-bioassessment. |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The IBI scores at this site ranked in the fair range (33) in the spring and poor (17) in the fall. | ||||
Data Reference: | Malibu Watershed 2005 Bioassessment Monitoring Report. (2005) The Malibu Creek Watershed Monitoring Program City of Calabasas, Environmental Services Division. Submitted by: Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked as very good (80-100), good (60-79), fair (40-49), poor (20-39) and very poor (0-19) habitat conditions. Sites with scores below 39 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Appendix 7-B Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493-504. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One site in Malibu Creek was sampled, above the Lagoon at 34° 02.761' N 118° 41.270' W | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sites were sampled in Spring and Fall of 2005 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Benthic macroinvertebrate populations and IBI scores may also be affected by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams) California Department of Fish and Game Water Pollution Control Laboratory Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Revision Date - December, 2003 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30178 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two sites sampled in 2005 IBI scores were calculated at 26 and 20, both category poor | ||||
Data Reference: | Malibu Bioassessment Winter 2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked as very good (80-100), good (60-79), fair (40-49), poor (20-39) and very poor (0-19) habitat conditions. Sites with scores below 39 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Appendix 7-B Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493-504. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Two sites in Malibu Creek were sampled, MC1 and MC12 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sites were sampled in winter of 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Benthic macroinvertebrate populations and IBI scores may also be affected by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. Collection procedures were audited by California Department of Fish and Game in 2006. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams) California Department of Fish and Game Water Pollution Control Laboratory Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Revision Date - December, 2003 | ||||
California Stream Bioassessment Procedure Biological and Physical Habitat Field Audit | |||||
DECISION ID |
16618 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Invasive Species |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.10 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.10, waters are listed when a declining trend in water quality is substantiated.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Five of 7 sites showed an increase in density of mud snails over the three years of sampling (2006, 2007, 2008) and 8 out of 8 sites sampled showed medium or high densities of mud snail in 2008. At high numbers, mud snails can completely cover a stream bed and damage local stream ecosystems. The colonies outcompete native aquatic invertebrates that the watersheds fish and amphibians rely on for food, disrupting the entire food web. Benthic macroinvertebrates as measured by Southern California IBI (index of biological integrity) in Malibu Creek were poor or fair in 2005 indicating impairment of benthic community structure. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Data was collected over a three years time frame and a baseline condition of zero abundance of the invasive species was used. 3. Five of seven sites showed an increase in density of mud snails over a three years of sampling and eight of eight sites sampled showed medium or high densities of mud snail in 2008. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The IBI scores at this site ranked in the fair range (33) in the spring and poor (17) in the fall. | ||||
Data Reference: | Malibu Watershed 2005 Bioassessment Monitoring Report. (2005) The Malibu Creek Watershed Monitoring Program City of Calabasas, Environmental Services Division. Submitted by: Aquatic Bioassay and Consulting Laboratories. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked as very good (80-100), good (60-79), fair (40-49), poor (20-39) and very poor (0-19) habitat conditions. Sites with scores below 39 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Appendix 7-B Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493-504. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One site in Malibu Creek was sampled, above the Lagoon at 34° 02.761' N 118° 41.270' W | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sites were sampled in Spring and Fall of 2005 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Benthic macroinvertebrate populations and IBI scores may also be affected by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams) California Department of Fish and Game Water Pollution Control Laboratory Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Revision Date - December, 2003 | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 30178 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two sites sampled in 2005 IBI scores were calculated at 26 and 20, both category poor | ||||
Data Reference: | Malibu Bioassessment Winter 2005 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked as very good (80-100), good (60-79), fair (40-49), poor (20-39) and very poor (0-19) habitat conditions. Sites with scores below 39 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Appendix 7-B Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493-504. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Two sites in Malibu Creek were sampled, MC1 and MC12 | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sites were sampled in winter of 2005. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Benthic macroinvertebrate populations and IBI scores may also be affected by a wide range of anthropogenic stressors. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected in compliance with California Stream Bioassessment Procedure. Collection procedures were audited by California Department of Fish and Game in 2006. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief for Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams) California Department of Fish and Game Water Pollution Control Laboratory Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory Revision Date - December, 2003 | ||||
California Stream Bioassessment Procedure Biological and Physical Habitat Field Audit | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 28702 | ||||
Pollutant: | Invasive Species | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Aquatic Life Use: | Fish Spawning | Preservation of Rare & Endangered Species | Wetland Habitat | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of five of seven sites showed an increase in density of mud snails over the three years of sampling (2006, 2007, 2008) and eight of eight sites sampled showed medium or high densities of mud snail in 2008 | ||||
Data Reference: | New Zealand Mudsnail Surveys July 2006, July 2007 and October 2008 Santa Monica Mountains. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission / Santa Monica Baykeeper. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that: "All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis 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: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Presence of high densities and increasing densities. While quantitative and predictive research continues, due to its ability to attain extremely high densities, the impacts of the mudsnails on aquatic ecosystems where it occurs in the western U.S. are large and include: decreased densities of native macroinvertebrates and reduced food resources; decreased whole-stream algal production; poor food source in that mudsnails are much more difficult to digest, with their hard shells and operculum than are the thin-shelled, native pulmonate snails that do not have opercula or than soft-bodied, aquatic insect larvae. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The New Zealand Mudsnail Invades the Western United States. Aquatic Nuisance Species Digest Volume 4 No. 4. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Eight sites were sampled in the following locations in Malibu Creek: Lookout Trail, Logans Run culvert U.S. Century Lake; MCSP D.S. of Rock Pool; Texas Crossing MCSP; Salvation Army Camp Bridge; the grated drain of Tapia Park U.S.; Malibu Canyon Rd. U.S. LA County Stream Gauge; the trail at end of Palm Cyn Rd in Serra Retreat; and Cross Creek Rd. U.S. in the middle of Arizona Crossing. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Salvation Army Camp Bridge was sampled in July of 2007 and October of 2008. The other seven sites were sampled in July of 2006, July of 2007, and October of 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data was collected as detailed in the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission and Santa Monica Baykeeper New Zealand Mudsnail Surveys. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | New Zealand Mudsnail Surveys July 2006, July 2007 and October 2008 Santa Monica Mountains. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission / Santa Monica Baykeeper. | ||||
DECISION ID |
7247 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nutrients (Algae) |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture-animal | Atmospheric Deposition | Golf course activities | Groundwater Loadings | Irrigated Crop Production | Major Municipal Point Source-dry and/or wet weather discharge | Nonpoint Source | Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
TMDL Name: | Malibu Creek Nutrients (50) |
TMDL Project Code: | 239 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/21/2003 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 2.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed 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. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been established by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been established by USEPA, and applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4325 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nutrients (Algae) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
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: | 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: | 28617 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nutrients (Algae) | ||||
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: | A TMDL has been established for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Malibu Creek Watershed Nutrient TMDL was established by USEPA on March 21, 2003. | ||||
Data Reference: | Staff report, appendix, and letter to SWRCB and Los Angeles RWQCB establishing a TMDL for Nutrients in the Malibu Creek Watershed. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA information unavailable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
7248 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Scum/Foam-unnatural |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Agriculture-animal | Atmospheric Deposition | Golf course activities | Groundwater Loadings | Irrigated Crop Production | Major Municipal Point Source-dry and/or wet weather discharge | Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks) | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
TMDL Name: | Malibu Creek Nutrients (50) |
TMDL Project Code: | 239 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/21/2003 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the section 303(d) list under sections 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under 2.2 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed 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. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the 303(d) list because a TMDL has been established by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been established by USEPA, and applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4326 | ||||
Pollutant: | Scum/Foam-unnatural | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-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: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 28618 | ||||
Pollutant: | Scum/Foam-unnatural | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A TMDL has been established for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Malibu Creek Watershed Nutrient TMDL was established by USEPA on March 21, 2003. | ||||
Data Reference: | Staff report, appendix, and letter to SWRCB and Los Angeles RWQCB establishing a TMDL for Nutrients in the Malibu Creek Watershed. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA information unavailable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
7250 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Trash |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source |
TMDL Name: | Malibu Creek Watershed Trash (63) |
TMDL Project Code: | 719 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 07/07/2009 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | SWRCB staff recommend the following changes to the decision:
The water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list being addressed by a TMDL because the Malibu Creek Watershed Trash TMDL was approved by USEPA on July 7, 2009. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4328 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Visual | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-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 |
4875 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing the water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. There are 20 samples available but there is no applicable water quality standard available with which to assess them. 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2248 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | There are 20 samples available but there is no applicable water quality standard available with which to assess them (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no applicable water quality standard for this pollutant in this water body for the assigned beneficial use(s). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gauge station (Stream Gauge No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
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 |
4859 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceeded the current 2002 ammonia water quality objective. No sample exceeded the one-hour average WQO and it was not possible to determine any exceedances of the 30-day average WQO because temperature data was not provided. 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.No sample exceeded the one-hour average ammonia WQO and it was not possible to determine any exceedances of the 30-day ammonia average WQO because temperature data was not provided and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 3.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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2244 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 13 samples taken from 10/31/00 to 12/3/01 at one to two-week sampling interval. No sample exceeded the one-hour average WQO. It was not possible to determine any exceedances of the 30-day average WQO since temperature data was not provided. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | One hour average Basin Plan Water Quality Objectives revised in 2002 for freshwaters designated COLD and or MIGR is dependent on pH and fish species, but not temperature. WQO ranged between 5.62mg/l at a pH of 8.0 and 2.14 mg/l at a pH of 8.5. The 30-day average WQO for waters not designated for spawning are dependent on pH and temperature. These WQOs have been adopted into the basin plan and are linked and applicable to protection of aquatic life beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/31/00 through 12/3/01at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Thirteen (13) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/31/00 to 12/3/01at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
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 |
4876 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No sample exceeds any water quality objective, criteria, or guideline for total copper applicable to the protection of any beneficial use. 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.No samples exceeded any water quality objective, criteria or guideline 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2249 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. No sample exceeded any guideline to protect MUN BUs. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no fresh water WQO criteria or guideline for total copper linked or applicable with protection of BUs in water. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4462 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A single sample exceeds the numerical diazinon guideline of 0.05 ug\l 4-day average generated by DFG as a fresh water assessment criterion for the protection of aquatic life is applicable to be used to interpret Basin Plan narrative pesticide WQO. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One sample out of 20 exceeded the DFG guideline 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2254 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. One (1) sample exceeded the DFG fresh water assessment criterion for Diazinon. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Narrative WQO is applicable for the protection of aquatic life BUs. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Numerical Diazinon guideline used to interpret Basin Plan narrative pesticide WQO. The numeric guideline used is 0.10 micro-grams per liter 4-day average generated by DFG as a fresh water assessment criterion for the protection of aquatic life (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/12/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4863 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No sample exceeds any water quality objective, criteria, or guideline for total lead applicable to the protection of any beneficial use. 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. None of the 20 samples exceeded any water quality objective, criteria or guideline 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2250 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. No sample exceeded any WQO,criteria or guideline associated with the total fraction of Lead in water to protect established BUs. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no fresh water WQO criteria or guideline for total lead linked or applicable with protection of BUs in water. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/12/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4879 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the Primary MCL guideline for Nickel of 0.1 mg/l to protect MUN beneficial uses. 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. None of the 20 samples exceeded the Primary MCL for Nickel 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 31400 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. No samples exceeded the Nickel MCL to protect MUN BUs. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Stormwater Monitoring Report; 2000-2001, 2002-2003 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Primary MCL guideline for Nickel of 0.1 mg/l shall not be exceeded to protect MUN beneficial uses in accordance with Title 22 of the California Code of regulation table 64431-A of section 64431. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15. Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/12/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4874 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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. None of the samples exceed the TDS site specific water quality objective for the protection of agricultural water supply. 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. None of the 20 samples exceeded the site specific TDS water quality objective and this does not exceed 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 Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2247 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. No sample exceeded the site specific objective. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Water Quality Objective of 2000 mg/l. The Numeric WQO was adopted as a site specific objective for Malibu Creek Watershed (Basin Plan Table 3-8) for the protection of agricultural water supply. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4588 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. No sample exceeds any water quality objective, criteria, or guideline for total zinc applicable to the protection of any beneficial use. 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. None of the 20 samples exceeded any water quality objective, criteria or guideline 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: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2252 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. No samples exceeded the any guideline for total zinc. (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no fresh water WQO criteria or guideline for total zinc linked or applicable with protection of BUs in water. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty (20) samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/12/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
7246 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Fish Barriers (Fish Passage) |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Dam Construction |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4324 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fish Barriers (Fish Passage) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
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: | 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 |
7249 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 4327 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
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: | 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 |
4589 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the CTR total selenium criterion for continuous concentration. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 20 samples exceeded the CTR criterion for total selenium and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2253 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. Five (5) samples exceeded the CTR continuous total selenium concentration criterion (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR total selenium criterion for continuous concentration in water for the protection of aquatic life is 5.0 ug/L. The criterion is linked and applicable for the protection of aquatic life Beneficial Uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/12/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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 |
4718 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Sulfates |
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)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the MCL guideline for Sulfate. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Nine of a combined total of 22 samples taken from 10/00 to 3/04 exceeded the MCL 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 Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2245 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 20 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 20 samples taken from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at one to two-week sampling interval. Seven (7) samples exceeded the Basin Plan Objective for Sulfate (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan Water Quality Objective of 500 mg/l is linked and applicable for the protection of MUN. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One sample site sampled during the dry and wet season beginning from 10/28/00 through 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Twenty samples where taken during the wet and dry season from 10/28/00 to 4/30/03 at approximately one to two week intervals as part of the Los Angeles County Storm water monitoring program prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | The Malibu Creek monitoring station is located at the existing stream gage station (Stream Gage No. F130-9-R) near Malibu Canyon Road, south of Piuma Road. At this location, the tributary watershed to Malibu Creek is 104.9 square miles. The entire Malibu Creek Watershed is 109.9 square miles. | ||||
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: | 2246 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples with two exceeding (SWAMP, 2004). | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CCR- Title 22 Table 64449-B Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels of 250 mg/L for sulfate. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | One station at Malibu Creek: 34.0429 -118.6842. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected March 2003 through March 2004. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Malibu Creek Watershed: 404.21. | ||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6648 |
Region 4 |
Malibu Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Coliform 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 (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source | Point Source |
TMDL Name: | Malibu Pathogens (47 in part) |
TMDL Project Code: | 236 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/2002 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. Based on the readily available information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | The decision has not changed. |
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2255 | ||||
Pollutant: | Coliform Bacteria | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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 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): | |||||