| |
DECISION ID |
17891 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollution |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 and 3.2 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality objective.
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 section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. 1 of 1 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples is needed for application of 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
26378 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Benthic Community Effects |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Adverse Biological Responses |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
1 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
One sample of IBI data was taken from May 2004 at one sampling site. Of that one sample, one sample exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. |
| Data Reference: |
Fish and Game IBI Data |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: 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. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. (SDRWQCB, 1995) |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) |
| Guideline Reference: |
"A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams". Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): 1-13.
|
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at one site: 907CHC2xx on Chocolate Creek. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred during one event on May 22, 2004. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". |
| |
Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure |
| |
The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan |
| |
DECISION ID |
16715 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of the 3 samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Three of the 3 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objective for nitrogen and this does not exceed 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded due to limited samples. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16715 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
8926 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nitrogen |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
3 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Three water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station 907SDCHC3 in May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005, all showed excessive nitrogen concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station (907SDCHC3). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |
| |
DECISION ID |
16716 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 3 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosporus.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of the 3 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosporus and this does not exceed 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded due to limited samples. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16716 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
8928 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
3 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Three water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station 907SDCHC3 in May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. Two of three showed excessive phosphorus concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters-streams and other flowing waters, with all beneficial uses, the water quality objective for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station (907SDCHC3). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected in May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16385 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of 3 samples exceed the secondary MSL drinking water standard.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of 3 samples exceed the secondary MSL drinking water standard and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16385 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
8929 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sulfates |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
3 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Three water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station 907SDCHC3 in May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. Two of three showed excessive sulfate concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The recommended secondary drinking water standard for sulfate is 250 mg/l (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected at Chocolate Creek station (907SDCHC3). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on May 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |