Water Body Name: | Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
Water Body ID: | CAR4052100019990202093310 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
70683 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Scum/Foam-unnatural |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Applicable WQS attained; due to restoration activities |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4 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 water body condition. A nitrogen TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the nitrogen standard. Qualitative information on scum/foam-unnatural alone is not sufficient to support placement on the section 303(d) list (Listing Policy section 3.7). It is expected that this TMDL will address the pollutant(s) contributing to or causing these conditions. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2523 | ||||
Pollutant: | Scum/Foam-unnatural | ||||
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 and implementation plan has been approved for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Los Angeles River Nitrogen TMDL was approved by RWQCB on August 19, 2003 and subsequently approved by USEPA on March 18, 2004. This TMDL will address this water body condition. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
71917 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Taste and odor |
Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollution |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4 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 water body condition. A nitrogen TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the nitrogen standard. Qualitative information on taste and odor alone is not sufficient to support placement on the section 303(d) list (Listing Policy section 3.7). It is expected that this TMDL will address the pollutant(s) contributing to or causing this condition. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2522 | ||||
Pollutant: | Taste and odor | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A TMDL and implementation plan has been approved for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Los Angeles River Nitrogen TMDL was approved by RWQCB on August 19, 2003 and subsequently approved by USEPA on March 18, 2004. This TMDL will address this water body condition. | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68764 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Los Angeles River Nitrogen (11) |
TMDL Project Code: | 229 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/18/2004 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. 18 of 101 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 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 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. 18 of 101 and 0 of 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Los Angeles River Nitrogen TMDL was approved by USEPA on 03/18/2004. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86204 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 46 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten out of 46 averaged samples exceeded the site specific Basin Plan objective for total ammonia as nitrogen during the months of April through September. A total of 221 samples were collected. All exceedances were prior to August 2007. None of the samples in sampling location "I" exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Plan objective for ammonia is a function of pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages. Site specific objectives for this water body are based upon the presence of early life stages during April 1 through September 30 as stated in Table 3-4. "Site-Specific 30-day Average Objectives for Ammonia by Waterbody Reach." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected in three Lake Balboa locations: D (at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and Hayvenhurst Channel), H (at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and Bull Creek), I (Los Angeles River, upstream of Bull Creek). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006 and beginning of 2007. Samples were collected weekly starting March 2007 through May 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86205 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 55 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 8 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Eight out of 55 averaged samples exceeded the site specific Basin Plan objective for total ammonia as nitrogen during the months of October through March. A total of 174 samples were collected. All exceedances occurred on or before March 2007. None of the samples in sampling location "I" exceeded the site specific objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Plan objective for ammonia is a function of pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages. Site specific objectives for this water body are based upon the absence of early life stages during October 1 through March 31 as stated in Table 3-4. "Site-Specific 30-day Average Objectives for Ammonia by Waterbody Reach." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected in three Lake Balboa locations: D (at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and Hayvenhurst Channel), H (at the confluence of the Los Angeles River and Bull Creek), I (Los Angeles River, upstream of Bull Creek). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006 and beginning of 2007. Samples were collected weekly starting March 2007 through May 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90492 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Los Angeles River Metals (13) |
TMDL Project Code: | 237 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/22/2005 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 12 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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, 0 of 0 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 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 listing decision made by USEPA for 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 twelve samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90493 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
TMDL Name: | Los Angeles River Metals (13) |
TMDL Project Code: | 237 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 12/22/2005 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of the 12 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from 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, 0 of 0 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 28 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
State Board 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86197 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 twelve samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2528 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
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: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a listing decision made by USEPA for 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97041 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE. 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. 0of 8 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE 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 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86172 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for anthracene is 845 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97096 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86173 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97097 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86174 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for benzo(a)anthracene is 1,050 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97098 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86175 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for benzo(a)pyrene is 1,450 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97099 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86176 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68677 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | ChemA |
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)(2016) |
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 NAS guidelines. 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 one sample exceeded the NAS guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2525 | ||||
Pollutant: | ChemA | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fish tissue analysis | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 1 tissue sample, 0 samples exceeding. This water body-pollutant was listed
on the 1996 303 (d) list in error by the RWQCB. The Chem A in this tissue sample collected in 1992 did not exceed the NAS Chem A guideline. (SWRCB, 2003a). |
||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | NAS guidelines are applicable to Aquatic Life. They are applicable to use for evaluation of tissue. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One site. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | One time sample. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Data age is 10 years old. | ||||
QAPP Information: | Not documented. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97025 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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. 1 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for total chlordane. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total chlordane is 17.6 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69456 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
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)(2016) |
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 water quality objective because EDLs are not an applicable assessment guidelines. . 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 any water quality objective 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2526 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | Data Used Missing | ||||
Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
Evaluation Guideline: | EDLs are not an applicable assessment guidelines. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
Spatial Representation: | |||||
Temporal Representation: | |||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97154 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86182 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97155 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86183 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for chrysene is 1,290 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97156 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86185 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97026 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86189 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight. Ref7 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97157 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86190 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97211 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86191 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97212 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86192 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97213 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluorene |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86193 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for fluorene is 536 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97027 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 11 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 11 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86196 | ||||
Pollutant: | Heptachlor epoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
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 eleven samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for heptachlor epoxide is 16.0 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97082 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 12 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86198 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 twelve samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for Lindane (gamma-BHC) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97083 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 12 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86199 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 twelve samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97214 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86200 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97160 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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. 34 of 545 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 34 of 545 samples exceeded the 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86206 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 545 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 34 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 545 averages of Dissolved Oxygen concentration had 34 exceedences. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality Objective of all surface waters designated as Warm Fresh Water Aquatic Habitat shall not be depressed below 5 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 Lake D, Lake H, and Lake I. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a week from January 2006 to May 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97269 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86207 | ||||
Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCBs is 676 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97270 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrene |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86212 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for pyrene is 1,520 ug/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
99192 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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. 5 of 544 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 5 of 544 samples exceeded the 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86213 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 544 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 544 averages of temperature had 5 exceedence. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | At no time shall warm freshwater habitat-designated waters be raised above 80 degrees Fahrenheit 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 Lake D, Lake H, and Lake I. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a week from January 2006 to May 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97024 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE. 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 8 samples exceed the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86215 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the eight samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, semiannually in 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97159 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board 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. 10 of 539 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 10 of 539 samples exceeded the 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86208 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 539 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten of the 539 samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of all inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Lake D, Lake H, and Lake I. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected approximately once a week from January 2006 to May 2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
94525 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy.
Several lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both bioassessment samples collected had IBI scores below 40. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing Benthic Community Effects 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. Two of the bioassessment samples collected had IBI scores below 40, indicating poor water quality. Additionally, the water body is impaired due to ammonia, copper, toxicity, and trash. Therefore, this water body segment meets the requirement of Section 3.9 of the listing policy for placement on the 303(d) List. 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 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
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 twelve samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected at station R-2 (also referred to as W-D). Monitoring at this station has been discontinued per LARWMP. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected quarterly in 2006, 2007 and 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The samples were collected by the Environmental Monitoring Division of the City of Los Angeles using a quality assurance program for all laboratory analysis. These laboratories are individually certified by the Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) of the California Department of Health Services. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
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 listing decision made by USEPA for 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86214 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 53 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifty-three samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Twenty-one of the 53 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included acute and chronic toxicity. The species and methods used can be found in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
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. 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 Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Los Angeles River Reach 5 Rec Lakes D, H, and I. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from 2007-2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 96220 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected from Los Angeles River over two years. Two of the two samples collected had IBI scores below 40. The scores were 1 (2006), 4 (2007). | ||||
Data Reference: | Bioassessment Monitoring Report in Los Angeles County, 2006-2008. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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. For the Southern California IBI, sites with scores below 40 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Wadeable Streams in Northern Coastal California and its Application to Regional 305(b) Assessment | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from Los Angeles River upstream of Sepulveda Dam, station 13. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in 2006 and 2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Qaulity assurance is good. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) contracted Weston Solutions, Inc. to perform biological assessments. Sampling and analysis followed the protocols described in the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) (Harrington, 2003), and also incorporated the Southern California Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Ode et al., 2005). | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2520 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 28081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
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 approved for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Trash TMDL for the Los Angeles River Watershed was adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB on August 09, 2007 and subsequently approved by USEPA. The TMDL was been integrated into the Basin Plan as Attachment A of Regional Board Resolution No. 2007-012. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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 |
69757 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Oil |
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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 3915 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 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 |
97021 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 21 of 53 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. 21 of 53 samples exceeded the GUIDELINE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 86214 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 53 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 21 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Fifty-three samples were collected to evaluate water toxicity. Twenty-one of the 53 samples exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included acute and chronic toxicity. The species and methods used can be found in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
Data Reference: | Data from the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant NPDES Permit no. CA0056227, Jan 2006-May 2010 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
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. 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 Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Los Angeles River Reach 5 Rec Lakes D, H, and I. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from 2007-2010. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The quality assurance manual for the Environmental Monitoring Division Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles was provided. Toxicity testing methods and requirements are in the NPDES permit CA0056227. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70501 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
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 (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source | Point Source |
TMDL Name: | Los Angeles River Nitrogen (11) |
TMDL Project Code: | 229 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 03/18/2004 |
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. The Los Angeles River Nitrogen TMDL was approved by RWQCB on August 19, 2003 and subsequently approved by USEPA on March 18, 2004. This TMDL will address this water body condition. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2521 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nutrients (Algae) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
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: | 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69326 |
Region 4 |
Los Angeles River Reach 5 ( within Sepulveda Basin) |
||
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 (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | Nonpoint Source | Surface Runoff | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
TMDL Name: | Los Angeles River Trash (12) |
TMDL Project Code: | 365 |
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 07/24/2008 |
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 completed and adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB and approved by USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
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. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 28081 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
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 approved for this water segment-pollutant combination. The Trash TMDL for the Los Angeles River Watershed was adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB on August 09, 2007 and subsequently approved by USEPA. The TMDL was been integrated into the Basin Plan as Attachment A of Regional Board Resolution No. 2007-012. | ||||
Data Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 2524 | ||||
Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Los Angeles River Trash TMDL was completed on September 19, 2001(USEPA, 2002). However, on July 19, 2006 the State Board rescinded approval of the TMDL and remanded it back to the Regional Board based on a court ruling in City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board (D043877).Visual trash assessment-TMDL completed (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
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: | Data was collected in the Los Angeles River Reach 5 at Sepulveda Basin. | ||||
QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||