| Water Body Name: | Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR4035200020110720112213 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
92098 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(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.
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. 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 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: | 93810 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92034 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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 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. 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: | 93774 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Aluminum | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for aluminum is 0.2 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93773 | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Aluminum, dissolved. | ||||
| 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: | The National Recommended Water Quality Critiera for the protection of aquatic life from aluminum is the chronic continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) of 87 ug/L. | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92240 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 94370 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 94371 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92035 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93777 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93778 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
97956 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status. The CSCI score for this site is above the 0.79 threshold and there are no other pollutants impairing this water body.
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 water segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3.The CSCI score for this site is above the 0.79 threshold and there are no other pollutants impairing this water body. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. The CSCI is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | The CSCI is applicable statewide, accounts for a much wider range of natural variability, and provides equivalent scoring thresholds in all regions of the state. The CSCI will be used in the future for water quality assessment purposes statewide over the regional indices of biologic integrity (IBIs). |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 95267 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm 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: | Sampling was done at Bouquet Canyon Random Site 136. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling was done on May 13, 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: | 83119 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The sample collected scored above 40 on the IBI, which means this water body would not be considered to have impaired conditions based on the bioassessment. | ||||
| 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 Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked. For the Southern California IBI, sites with scores below 40 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sampling was done at Bouquet Canyon Random Site 136. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling was done on May 13, 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
93425 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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. 0 of 1 and 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93784 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 Bifenthrin does not exceed 0.0006 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 83120 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
92036 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93786 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93785 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93478 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83122 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlordane, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for chlordane is 17.6 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93527 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 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. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83123 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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: | One sample result was not used in the assessment because the laboratory method detection limit was above the guideline and the result was non-detect, therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no chlorpyrifos evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: 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 (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
92037 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93792 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93787 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92140 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93794 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93793 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93528 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 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 beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83124 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93426 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93800 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, 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: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Cyhalothrin, lambda, total does not exceed 0.0005 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 83125 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93427 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93804 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| 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 interim freshwater criterion maximum concentration is 0.002 ug/L (DFG 00-6, 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Sacramento River Water Sampling Data for 303(d) Listing/Delisting Process. Letter W-101-200-000 and data files | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 83126 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
99183 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83127 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
99184 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83129 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93641 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83128 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83130 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93475 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 1 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83132 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93808 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.02 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93529 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83133 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | There is no diazinon evaluation guideline specific to "sediment, interstitial water" (pore water). The following evaluation guideline was used to evaluate an exceedance in water quality standards: the freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93585 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83111 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93586 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83112 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93476 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93767 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.13 ug/L, as determined in a 96 hour toxicity test using the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas. (USEPA OPP Ecotoxicity database) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 83113 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93477 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93768 | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 median lethal concentration (LC50; 2.2 ug/L). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 83114 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93587 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 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. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83115 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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: | One of one sample result was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because after the laboratory method detection limit value was organic carbon normalized the result was above the guideline, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.13 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93588 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 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. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83116 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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: | One of one sample result was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because after the laboratory method detection limit value was organic carbon normalized the result was above the guideline, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfide is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.16 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
93640 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 0 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. 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83117 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fipronil Sulfone | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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: | One of one sample result was non-detect. It was not used in the assessment because after the laboratory method detection limit value was organic carbon normalized the result was above the guideline, therefore the result could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fipronil sulfone is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.12 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Maul et al. 2008). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Effect of sediment-associated pyrethroids, fipronil, and metabolites on Chironomus tentans growth rate, body mass, condition index, immobilization, and survival. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27(12):2582-2590. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
92141 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93770 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93769 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92238 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93771 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93772 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93530 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 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. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83118 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
91933 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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. 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. 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: | 93775 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Manganese | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92239 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93779 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93776 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93712 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) |
| 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. 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: | 93780 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Nitrate/Nitrite as N objective for the Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) within the Santa Clara River watershed's Between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99 reach boundary as 10 mg/L. | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93713 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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. 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: | 93781 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92148 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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. 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: | 93782 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92150 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence 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 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. 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: | 93783 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
93428 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
2 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE. 0 of 0 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. 0 of 1 and 0 of 0 sample exceeded the GUIDELINE and this sample size is INSUFFICIENT to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83121 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| 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 data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (LARWQCB 2004): 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan Los Angeles Region R4 Basin Plan | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Bouquet Canyon Creek station (403STCBQT).] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 1/7/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93788 | ||||
| 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: | State Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. One sample was not used in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy. | ||||
| 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: | UC Davis Aquatic Life Criteria: Aquatic life should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of Permethrin; Permethrin, total does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Aquatic life water quality criteria derived via the UC Davis method: ll. Pyrethroid insecticides. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 216:51-103. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92241 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93797 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93796 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91506 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93798 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93799 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91934 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
| 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.
1 line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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. 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: | 93801 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for Specific Conductance is 900 uS/cm (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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91696 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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. 0 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. 0 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: | 93803 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93802 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Sulfate. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Sulfate objective for the Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) within the Santa Clara River watershed's Between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99 reach boundary as 300 mg/L. | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91697 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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. 0 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. 0 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: | 93806 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dissolved Solids. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB4 Stormwater Monitoring Council CY2008 CY2009 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-8 of The Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region specifies the Dissolved Solids objective for the Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) within the Santa Clara River watershed's Between Bouquet Canyon Road Bridge and West Point Highway 99 reach boundary as 1000 mg/L. | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93807 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91799 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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 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 GUIDELINE. 0 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 and 0 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: | 82628 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| 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: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate water toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia dubia. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| 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 403BA0136. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in May 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 83131 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample exhibited significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Project Urban Pyrethroid Status Monitoring | ||||
| 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 using the significant effect code: S equals significant, SG equals significantly greater and SL equals significantly lower. If a sample has any one of these codes, it will be considered an exceedance. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322¿1329 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. June 1994. EPA 600/R-94/025 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 403STCBQT. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in January 2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
92149 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| 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.
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. 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: | 93809 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
91800 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence 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 OBJECTIVE. 0 of 1 sample exceeded the OBJECTIVE. 0 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. 0 of 1, 0 of 1, 0 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. |
| 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: | 93791 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93795 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93790 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 93789 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
92151 |
Region 4 |
Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| 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: | 2029 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 23 of 110 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 23 of 110 samples exceeded the OBJECTIVE and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. 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 following changes to the decision:
The water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93805 | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Boquet Canyon Random Site 136 - 403BA0136] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2008. | ||||
| 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: | 96175 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 43 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 17 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 17 samples exceeded the numeric water quality objective for temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Various Water Bodies in Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 2005-2010. | ||||
| 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 Bouquet Canyon Creek (below Bouqet Reservoir) was collected at 1 monitoring site [SCR- R14] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from weekly from January to September in 2006 and a single day 1/30/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-2960 for County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Saugus Water Reclamation Plant) (NPDES NO. CA0054313) | ||||