Pollutant: |
Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Ammonia |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150350, Ammonia
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
257172 |
|
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: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. |
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: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Arsenic |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Cadmium |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Chloride |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Chromium |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Iron |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140653, Iron
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
262620 |
|
Pollutant: |
Iron |
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Iron. |
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: |
Non-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: |
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The evaluation guideline for Iron is 1,000 ug/L. |
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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140653, Iron
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
262416 |
|
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: |
Water Board staff assessed San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Iron. |
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: |
Non-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: |
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Continuous Concentrations are intended protect freshwater aquatic organisms from chronic exposures and are expressed as 4-day average concentrations. The evaluation guideline for Iron is 1,000 ug/L. |
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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Mercury |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Nickel |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Nitrogen, Nitrate |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150079, Nitrogen, Nitrate
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
302345 |
|
Pollutant: |
Nitrogen, Nitrate |
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Nitrate as N. |
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: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (page 3-34) states that: Waters shall not exceed 10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N). |
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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board Conclusion: |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 151850, Oxygen, Dissolved
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
308231 |
|
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek 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: |
Non-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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Selenium |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140657, Selenium
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
266258 |
|
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: |
Water Board staff assessed San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. |
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: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140657, Selenium
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
266320 |
|
Pollutant: |
Selenium |
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Selenium. |
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: |
Non-SWAMP |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The selenium criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 5 ug/L (California Toxics Rule, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards 2000. Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California: Rules and regulations. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 97. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Temperature, water |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140658, Temperature, water
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
266731 |
|
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek 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: |
Non-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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
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 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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140659, Turbidity
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
268289 |
|
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 San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek 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: |
Non-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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board 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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Regional Board 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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 140656, pH
|
Region 4 |
Avocado Creek |
|
|
LOE ID: |
264942 |
|
Pollutant: |
pH |
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: |
Water Board staff assessed San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program data for Avocado Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 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: |
Non-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: SMC00382_SGRRMP (SGLR00382). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the dates of 2018-06-21 and 2018-06-21 |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Aquatic Bioassay & Consulting Laboratories. 2019. San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
San Gabriel River Regional Monitoring Program |
|