Water Body Name: | Zuma Canyon |
Water Body ID: | CAR4043600020110724134249 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
139646 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 256640 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256772 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90451 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Alkalinity as CaCO3 criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 20000 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90474 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (Water Quality Control Plan, Colorado River Basin). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The Alkalinity as CaCO3 criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 20000 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139630 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Allethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 256818 | ||||
Pollutant: | Allethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Allethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Allethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.05 ug/L for an invertebrate (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
153933 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Aluminum |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | During the 2024 cycle, the 1988 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria used to assess aluminum data was replaced with U.S. EPA’s 2018 Final Recommended Aquatic Life Criteria for Aluminum in Freshwater. LOEs from a past cycle were reevaluated, found to be inaccurate, and retired. LOE 90476 was retired and LOE 90475 was replaced by LOE 315205 due to the new aluminum criteria. Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 315205 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4_SMC_2008 data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The aluminum criterion for the protection of aquatic life, is pH, total hardness, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) dependent. When total hardness or DOC data were not available, default values based on the level III ecoregions developed by U.S EPA were substituted (EPA, 2018). When pH data were not available, the median pH value for the ecoregion, a pH value from a comparable waterbody, or a pH value from a local study in the same waterbody was used as a comparable surrogate. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum. EPA-822-R-18-001. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, USEPA. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-06-03 and 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 315204 | ||||
Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4_SMC_2008 data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Aluminum. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The aluminum criterion for the protection of aquatic life, is pH, total hardness, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) dependent. When total hardness or DOC data were not available, default values based on the level III ecoregions developed by U.S EPA were substituted (EPA, 2018). When pH data were not available, the median pH value for the ecoregion, a pH value from a comparable waterbody, or a pH value from a local study in the same waterbody was used as a comparable surrogate. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Aluminum. EPA-822-R-18-001. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, USEPA. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2008-06-03 and 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
151124 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. Two line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples are needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody 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. One of two benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 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: | 95283 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The CSCI score for this site is above the 0.79 threshold, and is therefore meeting the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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 (Rhen, 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: | Sample was collected at Zuma Canyon Random Site 852. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sampling was done on June 3, 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Samples were collected for the SWAMP RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY 2008 following SWAMP protocols and data were stored in the SWAMP database. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 305297 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 404BA0852 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were 0.682726316. | ||||
Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
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: | Samples were collected from station 404BA0852. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 8/8/2017. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected using Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139644 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90160 has been replaced by LOE 309989 due to reassessment of data using a different Evaluation Guideline. LOE 90161 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 257868 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 309989 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for bifenthrin is 0.1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of bifenthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Bifenthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139635 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258441 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000, with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139655 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Cinerin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 258557 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cinerin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Cinerin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cinerin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic), and is the sum of cinerin-1, and cinerin-2. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139647 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259409 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cyfluthrin is 0.2 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cyfluthrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cyfluthrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139649 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90205 has been replaced by LOE 310698 due to reassessment of data using a different Evaluation Guideline. LOE 90206 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262680 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310698 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lambda-cyhalothrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for lambda-cyhalothrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Lambda-cyhalothrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139645 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90225 has been replaced by LOE 310172 due to reassessment of data using updated USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. LOE 90226 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310172 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259340 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for cypermethrin is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of cypermethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Cypermethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139648 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90227 has been replaced by LOE 310064 due to reassessment of data using updated USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. LOE 90228 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 259964 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310064 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.000026 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139636 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 260304 | ||||
Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Diazinon. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.10 ug/L (4 day average)(Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139651 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90229 has been replaced by LOE 310381 due to reassessment of data using updated USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. LOE 90230 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310381 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261535 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for esfenvalerate is 0.3 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of esfenvalerate were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Esfenvalerate | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139650 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90248 has been replaced by LOE 310652 due to reassessment of data using updated USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark. LOE 90249 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261581 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0015 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310652 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for Fenpropathrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.0015 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139642 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261625 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fipronil. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of fipronil does not exceed 0.0032 ug/L (3.2 ng/L) in the water column more than once every three years on average (Bower, et al. 2017). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water and Sediment Quality Criteria Report for Fipronil. Phase III: Application of the pesticide water and sediment quality criteria methodologies. Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139631 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Desulfinyl |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261810 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Desulfinyl | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fipronil Desulfinyl. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil degradate fipronil desulfinyl is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.54 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139652 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fipronil Sulfide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil degradate fipronil sulfide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.83 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139653 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 261777 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Fipronil Sulfone. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil degradate fipronil sulfone is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.037 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139643 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262423 | ||||
Pollutant: | Imidacloprid | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Imidacloprid. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of imidacloprid does not exceed 0.016 ug/L. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Imidacloprid Phase III: Application of the pesticide water quality criteria methodology. Department of Environmental Toxicology. University of California, Davis | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139656 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Jasmolin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 262715 | ||||
Pollutant: | Jasmolin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Jasmolin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for jasmolin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic), and is the sum of jasmolin-1, and jasmolin-2. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139637 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264321 | ||||
Pollutant: | Organophosphate Pesticides | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Organophosphorus Pesticides. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from the additive effects of the organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos and diazinon is one toxic unit equivalent. A toxic unit equivalent is equal to the sum of chlorpyrifos and diazinon from a single sample, each having their reported concentration divided their respective evaluation guideline prior to being summed. If this results in a value greater than one, the sample is considered to be in exceedance of the water quality standard. (Bailey et al., 1997). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Joint acute toxicity of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
151933 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 308490 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-39) states that: The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as WARM shall not be depressed below 5 mg/L 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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90318 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as COLD shall not be depressed below 6 mg/L 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90317 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as both COLD and SPWN shall not be depressed below 7 mg/L 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90307 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-11) states that: "The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as WARM shall not be depressed below 5 mg/L 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 308440 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-39) states that: The dissolved oxygen content of all surface waters designated as WARM shall not be depressed below 5 mg/L 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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139654 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. LOE 90336 has been replaced by LOE 310969 due to reassessment of data using a different Evaluation Guideline. LOE 90319 was assessed erroneously and will be removed. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264802 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 310969 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chronic criterion for permethrin is 1 ng/L (expressed as a 4-day average). If the freely dissolved concentrations of permethrin were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Criteria Report for Permethrin | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139658 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Piperonyl Butoxide |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265405 | ||||
Pollutant: | Piperonyl Butoxide | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Piperonyl Butoxide. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for piperonyl butoxide is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 30 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139657 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265608 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for pyrethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.86 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic), and is the sum of pyrethrin-1 and pyrethrin-2. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139633 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrins |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265502 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethrins | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Pyrethrins. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for pyrethrins is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.04 ug/L for an invertebrate (chronic), and is the sum of cinerin-1, cinerin-2, jasmolin-1, jasmolin-2, pyrethrin-1, and pyrethrin-2. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139641 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 266012 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2017-08-08 to 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 311021 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the water quality threshold and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The summed ratios of the pyrethroid pesticides bifenthrin, cyfluthrin, cypermethrin, esfenvalerate, lambda-cyhalothrin, permethrin and their respective chronic concentration goals are not to exceed 1. If the freely dissolved concentrations of these pesticides were reported or could be calculated then these values were used for this assessment. In the absence of freely dissolved concentrations, total concentrations were used. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins for the Control of Pyrethroid Pesticide Discharges | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2008-06-03 to 2008-06-03 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
139632 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | T-Fluvalinate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 266885 | ||||
Pollutant: | T-Fluvalinate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for T-Fluvalinate. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for tau-fluvalinate is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 0.064 ug/L for a fish (chronic). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139639 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 90384 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than 5 deg. F above the natural temperature. At no time shall these WARM-designated waters be raised above 80 deg. F 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: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267257 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-45) states that: For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than 5 °F above the natural temperature. At no time shall these WARM-designated waters be raised above 80 °F 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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267260 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: The natural receiving water temperature of all regional waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267258 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: The natural receiving water temperature of all regional waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90383 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan states that the natural receiving water temperature of all regional waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Alterations for waters designated COLD shall not be altered by more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit above the natural temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267272 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-45) states that: For waters designated WARM, water temperature shall not be altered by more than 5 °F above the natural temperature. At no time shall these WARM-designated waters be raised above 80 °F 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: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139634 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Tetramethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 267599 | ||||
Pollutant: | Tetramethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Tetramethrin. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for tetramethrin is the USEPA Aquatic Life Benchmark of 1.85 ug/L for a fish (acute). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | OPP Aquatic Life Benchmarks | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2017-08-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139640 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 268038 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduced foraging efficiency and a shift in prey selection in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) due to interference with their ability to find prey (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268268 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region states that: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduced foraging efficiency and a shift in prey selection in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) due to interference with their ability to find prey (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
139638 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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)(2018) |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 90341 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90338 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 265112 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed RWB4 So. CA Stormwater Monitoring Coalition data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for inland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-08-08 and 2019-05-08 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90339 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 264863 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP RWB4 Monitoring data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Tissue, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 4. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for inland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2020-07-14 and 2020-07-14 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90337 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Basin: the pH for insland surface waters, bays, or estuaries shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96416 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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.
4 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 94527 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia ? Freshwater (USEPA 2013): the 30-day rolling average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia nitrogen(in mg TAN/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH and temperature. The CCC formula is found on page 46 and the table of CCC values is on page 49. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 94524 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. (EPA 822-R-06-013, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 82734 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 1 samples exceed the water USEPA Temperature and pH-Dependent values of the CCC (Chronic Criterion) for Fish Early Life Stages Present for ammonia. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Miscellaneous Ventura Coastal 2006 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2002): 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: | Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia (USEPA 1999): Where salmonids and fish early life stages are present, the 30-day average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia (as mg N/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH, temperature, and the presence of early life stages of fish. The CCC formula is found on p.83 and the table of CCC values are found on p.87. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 1999 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 404BA0852 (Zuma Canyon Random Site 852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 94528 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface water shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia ? Freshwater (USEPA 2013): the 30-day rolling average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia nitrogen(in mg TAN/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH and temperature. The CCC formula is found on page 46 and the table of CCC values is on page 49. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96591 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90136 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90137 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved arsenic criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater for dissolved arsenic is 0.150 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90135 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for arsenic incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.010 mg/L (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96712 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90180 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90179 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.005 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90162 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96765 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90183 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90182 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90181 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for total chromium incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96766 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90204 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90184 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Toxic Rule objective for copper in water water and organisms for the protection of human health is 1300 µg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90203 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96830 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Iron |
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.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List 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. 1 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90252 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Iron. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for Iron is 0.3 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90251 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Iron, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin: waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect aquatic organisms from chronic exposures (expressed as 4-day average concentration) in freshwater. The evaluation guideline for iron is 1,000 ug/L to protect warm freshwater habitat. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90250 | ||||
Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Iron, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, Central Valley Region, Tulare Lake Basin: waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect aquatic organisms from chronic exposures (expressed as 4-day average concentration) in freshwater. The evaluation guideline for iron is 1,000 ug/L to protect warm freshwater habitat. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Office of Science and Technology | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96767 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90280 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90253 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Public Health Goal for lead in sources of drinking water is 0.0002 mg/L. (OEHHA 2009) | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Public Health Goal for Lead in Drinking Water | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90254 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96415 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Manganese |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List 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. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90281 | ||||
Pollutant: | Manganese | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Manganese. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for manganese is 0.5 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96768 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90304 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90303 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90282 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-8) states that water designated for use as Domestic or Municipal Supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in the provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for nickel is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96474 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90305 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate (NO3 as N) incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 10.0 mg/L (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96475 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90306 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-8) states that water designated for use as Domestic or Municipal Supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in the provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations: Table 64431-A of Section 64431 (Inorganic Chemicals), Table 64444-A of Section 64444 (Organic Chemicals). The maximum contaminant level listed in Table 64431-A for nitrite as N is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96828 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90360 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90359 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium, dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 0.005 mg/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90358 | ||||
Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Selenium, Total. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for selenium incorporated by reference in the Basin Plan is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96829 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Silver |
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.
3 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90379 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90361 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90362 | ||||
Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Silver. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for silver is 0.1 mg/L (Basin Plan). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
96537 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 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. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1 and 1 of 1 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90381 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Sulfate. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for sulfate is 250 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90382 | ||||
Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample collected exceeded the objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-8 states that the Sulfates maximum concentration objective in the Malibu Creek watershed is 500 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 station (404BA0852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
96539 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 are necessary to assess listing status.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 1 of 1 and 0 of 1 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 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90403 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for Dissolved Solids is 500 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90404 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm 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 objective. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-8 states that the Total Dissolved Solids maximum concentration objective in the Malibu Creek watershed is 2000 mg/L. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected from the Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 station (404BA0852). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected on 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
96595 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample 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. 1 of 1 sample 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: | 90405 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One samples was collected to evaluate water toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | 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. Region 4 Basin Plan. | ||||
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. For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
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 sample was collected at station 404BA0852. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in June 2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data quality is good. Data results were recorded in the SWAMP database and followed SWAMP protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
96596 |
Region 4 |
Zuma Canyon |
||
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 0 of 1 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the CRITERIA and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using Table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
Regional Board 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: | 90407 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90406 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Zuma Canyon to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Zuma Canyon was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Zuma Canyon Random Site 852 - 404BA0852] | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/3/2008. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||