| Water Body Name: | Lytle Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8014100019990211103501 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
70005 |
Region 8 |
Lytle Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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 change in WQS |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This 303(d) listing was made prior to 2006 and therefore the data is not held in the assessment database and was carried over in the 2010 and 2012 listing cycles without any additional data.
In 2012, the Regional Board revised its Basin Plan with new Pathogen Bacteria Indicator Objectives for REC-1 (Resolution No. R8-2012-001, approved by USEPA in 2015). In general, the primary objective is <126 E. coli organisms per 100 mL as a geomean of at least 5 samples in a running 30-day period (there were additional provisions for specific waters through UAAs, a high flow suspension provision and use of Single Sample Maximums for posting and for the case where limited data prevents the calculation of geomeans). During 2008, 2009 and 2010, as part of a Bacteria Assessment Monitoring Program, a total of 425 samples were collected from Lytle Creek at 5 sampling locations and were analyzed for E. coli, which resulted in the calculation of 59 30-day, 5-sample geomeans for each of 4 sampling locations and 41 30-day, 5-sample geomeans for 1 sampling location, or 277 geomean measurements. Of those 277 30-day, 5-sample geomean measurements, 13 were above the current objective for Indicator Pathogen Bacteria (<126 E. coli organisms per 100 mL). Thirteen (13) exceedances within 277 geomean measurements falls well below the minimum number of exceedances needed to place a water segment on the 303(d) list for conventional pollutants (Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy). Therefore, Regional Board staff has made the decision to delist Lytle Creek for ¿Pathogens¿ based on a change in objectives from ¿<200 fecal coliform organisms per 100 mL¿ to ¿<126 E. coli organisms per 100 mL¿ and the weight of evidence based on extensive, current sampling that supports this delisting decision. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant 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: | 4419 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96009 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 277 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Thirteen of the 277 geomeans exceeded the E. coli objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Indicator Bacteria Analysis Results from 6 locations on Lytle Creek from 9/3/2008 through 4/23/2010. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The running geometric mean of at least 5 samples in a 30-day period shall be less than 126 E. coli organisms per 100 mL. 2015 Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from 5 locations: 1st turnout, Pump Station Intake, Green Mtn Rd Bridge, Applewhite Picnic Area and Meadow Lane Happy Jack. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected weekly from May 2008 through April 2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Sampling and analysis were conducted in accordance with Regional Board Guidelines. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is an empty reference added to the system to allow past cycle LOEs that were previously assigned to the incorrect water body to be moved to their correct water body using an LOE moving tool. The reference itself contains no data and the link will give a 404 error. | ||||
DECISION ID |
97911 |
Region 8 |
Lytle Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutant(s) is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of the 4 benthic macroinvertebrate samples exceed (fall below) the California Streams Condition Index (CSCI) threshold for likely altered biological condition. The water segment does not have associated pollutant(s) samples that exceed water quality objectives. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence provides sufficient justification for not placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment 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. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water segment does exhibit significant degradation in biological populations and/or communities as compared to reference site(s) using the California Stream Condition Index. 4. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water segment does not have associated pollutant(s) samples that exceed water quality objectives. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not being met. The California Stream Condition Index is a new scoring tool for bioassessment data that is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI has been used in some assessments this reporting cycle and will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). If CSCI scores have not been calculated for data and only IBI scores are available, IBI scores will still be used to interpret the data. |
| 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: | The California Stream Condition Index is a new scoring tool for bioassessment data that is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI has been used in some assessments this reporting cycle and will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). If CSCI scores have not been calculated for data and only IBI scores are available, IBI scores will still be used to interpret the data. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 81760 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were collected from four different sites during 2006 and 2007 to assess benthic macroinvertebrates. One of the four samples collected had a CSCI score below the 0.79 threshold and therefore exceeds the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. The CSCI scores for the sites are 0.74, 0.90 (2006), and 1.1, 1.1 (2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in the Streams of Region 8, 2009. | ||||
| Region 8 CSCI scores and data. | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Inland surface water communities and populations, including vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, shall not be degraded as a result of the discharge of waste. Degradation is damage to an aquatic community or population with the result that balanced community no longer exists. The concentrations of toxic pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from stations 801LYC028 (SMCR8_028), 801LYC062 (SMCR8_062), 801LYC271 (SMCR8_271), 801LYC346 (SMCR8_346). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in June 2006 at sites 801LYC028 (SMCR8_028), 801LYC062 (SMCR8_062) and June 2007 at sites 801LYC271 (SMCR8_271), 801LYC346 (SMCR8_346). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected for the RWB8's Probabilistic Stream Survey CY2006 and CY2007 following SWAMP protocols and data were stored in the SWAMP database. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
97240 |
Region 8 |
Lytle Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One (1) line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one sample exceed 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. Zero (0) of one sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 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: | 81761 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample collected did not exceed the site-specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in the Streams of Region 8, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The site-pecific objective for Chloride at Lytle Creek according to table 4-1 of the Santa Ana Basin plan is 4 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from the SMCR8_600 station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on the following dates: 6/28/2009 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was analyzed by CSULB and follows California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols. No QAPP provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
95545 |
Region 8 |
Lytle Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1, a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
A single line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the water quality Objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Zero (0) of the one (1) sample exceeds the water quality Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples are 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: | 81762 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 1 sample collected had no exceedences of the site-specific objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in the Streams of Region 8, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The objectives listed in Table 4-1 shall not be exceeded as a result of controllable water quality factors. The site-specific objective for Sulfates at Lytle Creek according to table 4-1 of the Santa Ana Basin plan is 25 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data was collected from the SMCR8_600 station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on 6/28/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was analyzed by CSULB and follows California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols. No QAPP provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
90361 |
Region 8 |
Lytle Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status for toxicity, and waters may be placed on the CWA section 303(d) List for toxicity alone.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 1 samples exhibited water toxicity. 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. Zero of the 1 samples exhibited water toxicity 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: | 81763 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate water toxicity. The one sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in the Streams of Region 8, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. Region 8 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin | ||||
| 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 in Lytle Creek at this site SMCR8_600. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in June 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was analyzed by CSULB and follows California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols. No QAPP provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||