| Water Body Name: | Sawpit Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4053100020050119104537 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
68475 |
Region 4 |
Sawpit Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2027 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database and are not available in the administrative record.
Even though fecal coliform is no longer the applicable indicator bacteria for fresh waters in the Los Angeles Region, studies show (Noble et al., 2003) that 80 to 90% of fecal coliform are E coli in the Los Angeles Region, and therefore the fecal coliform data used to list this waterbody is a reasonable stand in for E coli until E coli data is available. This conservative approach will limit the potential for delisting this waterbody which data has shown to be impaired for fecal indicating bacteria. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2573 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five of six samples exceeded the fecal coliform objective (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan WQO: 400 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from six sample sites | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in November 2000, January, February, and March 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during storm events. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Evaluation of analytes and QA/QC specification for Monitoring Programs. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69581 |
Region 4 |
Sawpit Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample exceed the Primary MCL guideline of 1 mg/l for total aluminum. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1.The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2.The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.One of seven samples exceeded the Primary MCL for total aluminum and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. 4.Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2575 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of seven samples exceeded the total aluminum criterion (LACDPW, 2000-2001). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Primary MCL criteria: 1 mg/L (ppm) for total aluminum (CCR, Title 22). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from seven sites. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in November 2000, January, February, and March 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during storm events. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Evaluation of analytes and QA/QC specification for Monitoring Programs. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69582 |
Region 4 |
Sawpit Creek |
||
| 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. It is unknown whether any of the five samples where total iron was detected are in exceedance because there is no fresh water WQO or criteria for total iron applicable to the protection of MUN BUs. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Total iron was detected in 5 of seven samples. It is unknown whether any of the samples where total iron was detected are in exceedance because there is no fresh water WQO or criteria for total iron applicable to the protection of MUN BUs. This does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2576 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Total iron was detected from five of the seven samples taken. It is unknown whether any of the five samples where total iron was detected are in exceedance (LACDPW, 2000-2001). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | There is no freshwater WQO or criteria for total iron applicable to the protection of MUN BUs. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from sites. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in November 2000, January, February, and March 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during storm events. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Evaluation of analytes and QA/QC specification for Monitoring Programs. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68164 |
Region 4 |
Sawpit Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the CTR 1.8 ug/l human health criterion for the risk of carcinogens due to consumption of water and organisms. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of 7 samples exceeded the CTR criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2577 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 6 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six of seven samples exceeded the CTR criteria for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (LACDPW, 2004c). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR criteria 1.8 ug/L (ppb) Human Health Freshwater (USEPA, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from seven sites. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in November 2000, January, February, and March 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during storm events. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Los Angeles Department of Public Works: Evaluation of analytes and QA/QC specification for Monitoring Programs. The report also included quality control data. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||