| Water Body Name: | Pescadero Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR2024001319980929143113 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
66297 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of Zero samples exceed the guideline for Alkalinity as CaCO3. 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 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. Zero out of Zero samples exceed the guideline for Alkalinity as CaCO3 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92600 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Alkalinity as CaCO3. Three sample results were 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: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface?waters?shall?not?contain?concentrations?of?chemical?constituents?in?amounts?that? adversely?affect?any?designated?beneficial?use. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-9/10/2008. | ||||
| 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 |
66300 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the two samples exceed the objective for Ammonia (Unionized). 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 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. Zero of the two samples exceeded the objective for Ammonia (Unionized) 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 4.2 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 4.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 4.11 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92601 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Fish Spawning | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 2 samples exceed the Annual Median for Un-ionized Ammonia (as N). Un-ionized ammonia (as N) was calculated from Total Ammonia (as N) from monthly samples reported in the data. The Annual Median of these Un-ionized ammonia (as N) values was then established and compared to the Annual Median for Un-ionized Ammonia (as N) at 0.025 mg/L in the RB2 Basin Plan. The data was reported as non-detects and as underneath the quantitation limit. These non-detects and values under the quantitation limit are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 202PES162 (Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on 5/15/2008, 6/18/2008, 9/10/2008, 10/9/2008, 12/11/2008 and 2/10/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
67405 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| 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: | 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. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record. The CSCI score for this site is 0.977221.
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 0.977221. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. The State Water Board has redefined the Integrated Reporting categories in order to make them more reflective of actual water quality conditions in the State. This revision allows for the inclusion of minimally disturbed data reference sites that were identified in the development of the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) tool into Category 1. Reference sites are the core of the State?s statewide biological and habitat assessment program and set the benchmark for biological conditions expected when human activity in the landscape is absent or minimal. Unless there is any additional data showing that beneficial uses in a water body are not being supported, these reference water bodies along with any other bioassessment data sets showing a score of 0.92 or higher will be placed in Category 1 (all core beneficial uses are supported). 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 staff do not want to place this water body in Category 1 at this time. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96012 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The CSCI score for this site is 0.977221 and is therefore meeting the water quality objective for this water body. This water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| 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 (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| 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: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI): A New Statewide Biological Scoring Tool for Assessing the Health of Freshwater Streams. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sampling was done at to following station:202PES170 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling was done on 4/10/2002 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
66301 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| 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: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| 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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the Six samples exceed the objective for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N). 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 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. Zero of the Six samples exceeded the objective for Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92608 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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 |
66333 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the objective for Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia). 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 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. Zero of 12 samples exceeded the objective for Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92604 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface?waters?shall?not?contain?concentrations?of?chemical?constituents?in?amounts?that? adversely?affect?any?designated?beneficial?use. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | USEPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2011 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. (EPA EPA 820-R-11-002, 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2011 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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: | 92603 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 6 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Surface?waters?shall?not?contain?concentrations?of?chemical?constituents?in?amounts?that? adversely?affect?any?designated?beneficial?use. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/15/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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 |
32471 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| 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, one line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of fifteen samples exceed the 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 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. Zero of fifteen samples 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 twenty-six 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92610 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of the 7 samples collected exceeded the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The minimum dissolved oxygen content of non-tidal water bodies designated as Cold water habitat is 7.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing station (202PES162). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 5/1/2008 5/15/2008 6/18/2008 9/10/2008 10/9/2008 12/11/2008 2/10/2009 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1774 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 8 data values exceed the water quality objective. Smallest = 7.69, largest 9.32 (mg/l). Average = 8.61 (mg/l) (Environmental Science Associates, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: For nontidal waters, the following objectives shall apply (SFBRWQCB, 1995):
Waters designated as: Cold water habitat. . . . . . . . . . . .7.0 mg/l minimum Warm water habitat. . . . . . . . . .5.0 mg/l minimum |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eight sample sites along the Creek and its immediate tributaries. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | ESA (Environmental Science Associates) survey made in summer, August 21 to September 24, 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Methodology discussed in ESA 2004 report. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
66402 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of seven samples exceed the objective for Specific Conductivity. 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 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. Zero out of seven samples exceed the objective for Specific Conductivity 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92617 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Specific Conductivity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us). | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for Specific Conductance is 900 us/cm (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region). | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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 |
66403 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 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(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of seven samples exceed the guideline for temperature. 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 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. Zero out of seven samples exceed the guideline for temperature 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92618 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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 |
32472 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| 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 at least one line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of twenty two samples exceed the 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 CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of twenty-two samples exceed 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 twenty-six 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92611 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region?s water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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: | 92612 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region?s water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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: | 92613 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region?s water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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: | 92616 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of 7 samples exceed the water quality objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQCB 2011): In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 202PES162 (Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples collected on 5/1/2008, 5/15/2008, 6/18/2008, 9/10/2008, 10/9/2008, 12/11/2008 and 2/10/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 92615 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| 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 Pescadero Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 7 samples exceed the criterion for pH. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.22 Constituents of Concern for Municipal and Agricultural Water Supplies states: At a minimum, surface waters designated for use as agricultural supply (AGR) shall not contain concentrations of constituents in excess of the levels specified in Table 3-6. The limit for pH ranges from 4.5-9.0. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Pescadero Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Pescadero approx 150 m upstream of Towne Fire Road crossing - 202PES162] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/1/2008-2/10/2009. | ||||
| 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: | 1775 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 8 data values exceed the water quality objective (Environmental Science Associates, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels (SFBRWQC, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eight sample sites along the Creek and its immediate tributaries. Fourteen total Pescadero and Butano SWAMP program sites were used (ESA, 2004). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | ESA (Environmental Science Associates) survey made in summer, August 21 to September 24, 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Methodology discussed in ESA 2004 report. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32976 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2016 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for delisting under sections 4.9 and 4.11 of the Listing Policy. Six lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The original listing was based on a recommendation to list by the Department of Fish and Game. According to available data, the water body has optimal or suboptimal habitat to support salmonids and a generally good insect community even though sedimentation from past practices will continue for some time. Summer measurements of turbidity did not exceed evaluation guidelines for the protection of salmonids. There is limited habitat for Coho because of the lack of deep pools, spawning gravels, and large woody debris. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The biological assessments used comply with the requirements of the Listing Policy section 6.1.5.8. 2. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 3. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 4. Even though most of the samples indicate optimal or suboptimal fish habitat and the benthic bioassessments indicate most of the samples have good or excellent ratings, there is still potential impacts on coho related to suitable spawning habitat. If California Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries Service find that for this water body fish populations are not impacted, the State Water Board supports removing this water body and pollutant from the list. 5. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1773 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 8 data values exceed the secondary MCL for turbidity. Smallest = 1.24, largest = 5.28 (NTU). Average = 2.74 (NTU). Comparison to the "changes in turbidity" objective cannot be made because background information is not available. None of the measurements exceed the 25 NTU evaluation guideline (Environmental Science Associates, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases from normal background light penetration or turbidity relatable to waste discharge shall not be greater than 10 percent in areas where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU (SFBRWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The WQOs address conditions both in the water column (sediment and turbidity narratives). Published sedimentation thresholds can be used as appropriate interpretive evaluation guidelines. The evaluation guideline used to determine turbidity exceedance is from published-peer reviewed paper, "The Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density and Growth of Steelheads and Coho Salmon", John W Sigler, et.al.1984. The guideline is as follows, "In our studies, as little as 25 NTUs (nephelometric turbidity units) of turbidity caused a reduction in fish growth." Sigler also discusses the result of turbidities in the 25-50 NTU range reduced growth and caused more newly emerged salmonids to emigrate from laboratory streams than did clear water (Sigler et al., 1984). Bisson and Bilby (1982) reported that juvenile coho salmon avoided water with turbidities that exceeded 70 NTU. Berg and Northcote (1985, as cited in Meehan 1991) reported that feeding and territorial behavior of juvenile coho salmon were disrupted by short-term exposures (2.5-4.5 days) to turbid water with up to 60 NTU. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eight sample sites along the Creek and its immediate tributaries (14 total Pescadero and Butano SWAMP program sites were used). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | ESA (Environmental Science Associates) survey made in summer, August 21 to September 24, 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Methodology discussed in ESA 2004 report. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1772 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Graphs of "Maximum Annual Flood Peaks Greater than Bankfull as a Ratio to the Mean Annual Flood" and "Maximum Annual Flood Peaks Greater than Bankfull as a Ratio to the Mean Annual Flood" appear to show that flooding continues to be periodic and occasional (e.g., Pages 4-5, 4-6).
Sediment Source Investigation (e.g., Analysis of aerial photos). "Erosional features associated with land management account for by far the greatest sediment delivery volumes from the watershed." (Page 6-48). "The sandstone and mixed lithology HGUs that underlie much of the forested area of the watershed may continue to produce relatively large quantities of sediment for some time." (Page 6-49). "While erosion and sediment delivery resulting from past management will likely continue for some time, there should be an overall decrease in sediment delivery to stream channels as land use practices continue to improve and as degraded lands recover both naturally and through proactive treatments." (Pages 6-49, 6-50).1. Analysis of the flood record on Pescadero Creek (1951 through 2001). 2. Analysis of changes in streambed elevation at the gauging station (1951 through 2001). |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (SFBRWQCB, 1995).
Turbidity Objective: "Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases from normal background light penetration or turbidity relatable to waste discharge shall not be greater than 10 percent in areas where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU." |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Single USGS gauging station, "Pescadero Creek," located at a bridge on Pescadero Road, 3.0 miles east of the town of Pescadero and 5.3 miles upstream of the mouth of Pescadero Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Series of annual maximum instantaneous flood peaks (annual flood series) for the 1952 through the 2001 water years. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Harvest practices employed by timber companies active in the watershed over the last twenty years are less intensive, and are far more sensitive to issues of erosion and water quality. Farmers and ranchers in the watershed have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Bureau to prevent erosion and improve both water quality protection measures and road maintenance practices in cultivated, rangeland and forest settings. In addition, the area of protected lands continues to increase with the acquisition of ranch and timberlands for parks and open space. Such acquisitions generally terminate intensive management of these lands, and the various parks and open space agencies have shown strong interest in addressing ongoing and potentially controllable erosion problems. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Good for USGS sampling program (USGS, 2002). Less good for aerial survey (e.g., "The results of this survey may have been influenced by lack of access to private lands." [Page 6-48]). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1779 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Habitat Assessment (Streams) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | |||||
| Number of Exceedances: | |||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | From the RWQCB: (1) There is little suitable habitat at present within the creek for coho salmon, and primary hypothesized limiting factors (for coho) are lack of good cover and deep pools, the second factor of which is in part related to an abundant total and fine sediment supply;
(2) Coho salmon are state listed as endangered south of the Golden Gate, and federally listed as threatened. Two-of-three brood years are believed to be extinct within Pescadero and Butano Creeks, and the third brood year appears to have a tenuous presence. (3) Although the steelhead trout run in both creeks does not appear to be immediately threatened by local extinction, run-size is substantially reduced from historical values by a variety of limiting factors including a lack of large woody debris and substantial increase in total and fine sediment supply. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1778 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | |||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | From the RWQCB: More than 80 percent of the estimated total sediment delivery to the channel network during the past two decades is associated with human land use activities. Much of this sediment is controllable (gullies associated with historical hillside agriculture, active and abandoned rural earth-surfaced roads, etc.). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1777 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Testimonial Evidence | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | |||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | In 1998 a letter was sent to RWQCB staff from the California Department of Fish and Game requesting that several waters be added to the section 303(d) list because of the threats to Coho salmon and steelhead. The letter states:
"...The Federal listing of both Coho salmon and steelhead as threatened species confirms the grave condition of these economically and intrinsically valuable fish populations. ...If these species are to survive, we must act now to improve aquatic habitat where it is most critical, namely in major rivers tributary to the Bay and ocean." The letter goes on to identify siltation as a problem in Pescadero and Butano Creeks. No data are provided or analyzed to support the conclusion that siltation is a water quality problem. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (SFBRWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1776 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Metric values from 18 sample sites for taxonomic richness, dominant taxon, members of three major benthic invertebrate families, a sensitive taxa index, the Shannon Diversity index, and tolerance value were scored and the 132 scores (6 scores for each sample site) summed to derive total scores for each site. Total scores were then used to assign "poor", "fair", "good", or "excellent" condition grades to each site along the Creek (SWAMP, 2004).Total sample site scores ranged from 10 to 28. The average score was 20.4, which is equivalent to a "good" rating. One site was rated "poor". Two sites were rated "fair". Eight sites were "good" and seven sites were "excellent". | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: 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 (SFBRWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Bioassessment guidelines from the following publication were used: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 1999 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eighteen sample sites along the Creek and its immediate tributaries. Fourteen total Pescadero and Butano SWAMP program sites were used (ESA, 2004). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | SWAMP assessment made in April 2002.
DFG assessments made in 1995. ESA (Environmental Science Associates) survey made in summer (August 21 to September 24) 2003. |
||||
| Environmental Conditions: | April 2002 SWAMP data is not directly comparable to summer 2003 data. Habitat conditions in summer 2003 were evaluated at each site. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | California Stream Bioassessment Protocols (CDFG 1999) used (in 2002 and 2003 surveys). SWAMP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1780 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Habitat Assessment (Streams) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | HABITAT ASSESSMENT | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Assessments of physical habitat quality, biotic conditions, pool habitat quality, and water quality in the Pescadero-Butano watershed revealed the following overall fisheries habitat conditions currently present in the watershed: (1) Accessible salmonid habitat is fairly abundant throughout the watershed, (2) salmonid habitat quality is higher in the mid and upper Pescadero Creek watershed and lower in the Butano Creek watershed as well as the low gradient reaches of Pescadero Creek, (3) pool habitat is fairly abundant but of limited depth and suboptimal cover, (4) water quality throughout both watersheds is generally adequate for salmonids and other aquatic organisms.
The primary limiting factors with regards to salmonid habitat, based on the sampled reaches, are generally shallow pool depths, limited amounts and frequency of large woody debris, and relatively high levels of fine sediments. These limiting factors are likely to be of greater significance to coho salmon than steelhead. Coho in particular require deep pools with low water velocities and adequate cover for survival and growth while steelhead are more adapted to occupying and foraging in the faster and shallower areas of stream channels. Thus, current habitat conditions in the watershed favor steelhead over coho salmon. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall remain free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota (SFBRWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eighteen sites along the creek and in small tributaries. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data and information collected in 2002 and 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP quality assurance and comparable ESA methods. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
44215 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are 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. None of the 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. Zero of nine samples exceeded the water quality objective 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28067 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nine water samples were collected in Pescadero Creek watershed and analyzed for total ammonia and un-ionized ammonia. None of them exceeded the evaluation criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Basin Plan stated that the discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving water to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess of 0.025mg/l annual median. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | For Total Ammonia: EPA'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. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from three monitoring locations (PES070, PES140 and PES190) representative of the entire creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during three seasons: dry, spring and wet season of 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The QA was in compliance with SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
44216 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 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. Zero of six samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 27987 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | SWAMP program collected six water samples from two locations in Pescadero Creek. Cadmium concentrations did not exceed the water quality objectives. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The objective in the Basin Plan is expressed by formulas where H=ln (hardness) as CaCO3 in mg/l: The four-day average objective for cadmium is e (exp 0.7852H - 3.490). This is 1.1 ug/l at a hardness of 100mg/l as CaCO3. The one hour objective is e (exp 1.128H - 3.828). This is 3.9ug/l at a hardness of 100mg/l as CaCO3. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from two monitoring locations PES050 and PES070 in the most downstream portion of the creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in three seasons: spring, wet and dry season of 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The QA/QC procedure was in compliance with Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program's (SWAMP) Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
44359 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 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. Zero of six samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 27934 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The Pescadero Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the six samples exceeded the water quality objectives for copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: copper - 9.0 ug/L, lead - 2.5 ug/L; nickel - 52 ug/L, silver - 3.4 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected from two monitoring locations PES050 and PES070 in the most downstream portion of the creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from three different seasons: dry, wet and spring season of 2002 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Control is is conducted in accordance with SWAMP's Quality Management Plan of 2002. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
32447 |
Region 2 |
Pescadero Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| 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)(2012) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample exceeds 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. One of 8 samples exceeded the secondary MCL and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1772 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Graphs of "Maximum Annual Flood Peaks Greater than Bankfull as a Ratio to the Mean Annual Flood" and "Maximum Annual Flood Peaks Greater than Bankfull as a Ratio to the Mean Annual Flood" appear to show that flooding continues to be periodic and occasional (e.g., Pages 4-5, 4-6).
Sediment Source Investigation (e.g., Analysis of aerial photos). "Erosional features associated with land management account for by far the greatest sediment delivery volumes from the watershed." (Page 6-48). "The sandstone and mixed lithology HGUs that underlie much of the forested area of the watershed may continue to produce relatively large quantities of sediment for some time." (Page 6-49). "While erosion and sediment delivery resulting from past management will likely continue for some time, there should be an overall decrease in sediment delivery to stream channels as land use practices continue to improve and as degraded lands recover both naturally and through proactive treatments." (Pages 6-49, 6-50).1. Analysis of the flood record on Pescadero Creek (1951 through 2001). 2. Analysis of changes in streambed elevation at the gauging station (1951 through 2001). |
||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface waters shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (SFBRWQCB, 1995).
Turbidity Objective: "Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases from normal background light penetration or turbidity relatable to waste discharge shall not be greater than 10 percent in areas where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU." |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Single USGS gauging station, "Pescadero Creek," located at a bridge on Pescadero Road, 3.0 miles east of the town of Pescadero and 5.3 miles upstream of the mouth of Pescadero Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Series of annual maximum instantaneous flood peaks (annual flood series) for the 1952 through the 2001 water years. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Harvest practices employed by timber companies active in the watershed over the last twenty years are less intensive, and are far more sensitive to issues of erosion and water quality. Farmers and ranchers in the watershed have been working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Bureau to prevent erosion and improve both water quality protection measures and road maintenance practices in cultivated, rangeland and forest settings. In addition, the area of protected lands continues to increase with the acquisition of ranch and timberlands for parks and open space. Such acquisitions generally terminate intensive management of these lands, and the various parks and open space agencies have shown strong interest in addressing ongoing and potentially controllable erosion problems. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Good for USGS sampling program (USGS, 2002). Less good for aerial survey (e.g., "The results of this survey may have been influenced by lack of access to private lands." [Page 6-48]). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1773 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 8 data values exceed the secondary MCL for turbidity. Smallest = 1.24, largest = 5.28 (NTU). Average = 2.74 (NTU). Comparison to the "changes in turbidity" objective cannot be made because background information is not available. None of the measurements exceed the 25 NTU evaluation guideline (Environmental Science Associates, 2004). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: Waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Increases from normal background light penetration or turbidity relatable to waste discharge shall not be greater than 10 percent in areas where natural turbidity is greater than 50 NTU (SFBRWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The WQOs address conditions both in the water column (sediment and turbidity narratives). Published sedimentation thresholds can be used as appropriate interpretive evaluation guidelines. The evaluation guideline used to determine turbidity exceedance is from published-peer reviewed paper, "The Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density and Growth of Steelheads and Coho Salmon", John W Sigler, et.al.1984. The guideline is as follows, "In our studies, as little as 25 NTUs (nephelometric turbidity units) of turbidity caused a reduction in fish growth." Sigler also discusses the result of turbidities in the 25-50 NTU range reduced growth and caused more newly emerged salmonids to emigrate from laboratory streams than did clear water (Sigler et al., 1984). Bisson and Bilby (1982) reported that juvenile coho salmon avoided water with turbidities that exceeded 70 NTU. Berg and Northcote (1985, as cited in Meehan 1991) reported that feeding and territorial behavior of juvenile coho salmon were disrupted by short-term exposures (2.5-4.5 days) to turbid water with up to 60 NTU. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Eight sample sites along the Creek and its immediate tributaries (14 total Pescadero and Butano SWAMP program sites were used). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | ESA (Environmental Science Associates) survey made in summer, August 21 to September 24, 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Methodology discussed in ESA 2004 report. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||