| Water Body Name: | San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
| Water Body ID: | CAR8011100019990211131732 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
13182 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
| 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: | Regional Board Conclusion:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 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. Thirty-three of 84 samples exceeded the EPA's single sample value of 236. While the frequency of measurements above this single sample value would warrant listing pursuant to the Listing Policy (Table 3.2), listing on the bases of these data is not appropriate at this time, based on the following: (1). The samples were collected on a monthly basis; insufficient samples were collected to derive geomeans. EPA has made clear in relevant guidance and regulation on EPA's bacteria criteria (e.g., Section IV B 3 of 40 CFR Part 131 (Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters; Final Rule) that the geometric mean is the more relevant value for ensuring that appropriate actions are taken to protect and improve water quality because it is a more reliable measure, being subject to less random variation and more directly linked to the underlying studies on which the 1986 bacteria criteria were based. EPA has consistently stated that the single sample standard is best used in making beach notifications and closure decisions. (2). The single sample value of 236 employed for comparative purposes is inappropriate since it is based on inappropriate assumptions regarding data variability and the intensity of recreational use at the sites (there are not designated beach areas). The value of 236 is derived based on the assumptions that (1) the log standard deviation of measured E. coli concentrations is 0.4 (essentially a default value that is assumed in the absence of adequate data/analysis), and (2) that the 75th percentile value should be selected to protect designated beach areas. EPA recommends that this percentile value be used for designated beach areas where a higher level of confidence is needed to assure that the geomean is being met. (As described in detail by EPA, single sample maximum values are statistical constructs designed to provide the assurance that geomean objectives are met. Greater confidence is needed where recreational use, and the threat of exposure, is highest; where there is limited recreational use, lower confidence is needed that the geomean is achieved.) However, the waters at issue here are not designated beach areas and receive little recreational use. Further, data variability is higher than the default value of 0.4. As a result, the applicable single sample value for comparative assessment purposes is not 236, but a higher value (which should be determined through a standards setting process; the Stormwater Quality Standards Task Force is engaged in this effort right now.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. Thirty-three of 84 samples exceeded the Ocean Plan's single sample standard and this standard is not appropriate on which to base listing decisions. The geometric mean standard is the appropriate standard on which to base listing decisions. The data available consists of monthly samples and geometric means can not be calculated. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. _ State Board Review and Conclusion: The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for Escherichia coli (E. coli) based on the following: As a result of State Board staff review State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB decision to not place this water body-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. Listing Policy section 6.1 requires all readily available data and information shall be evaluated. In the absence of geometric mean information single sample data will be assessed. State Water Board staff agreed with the assessment contained in the associated LOE developed by Regional Board which is based on, water quality criteria of 235 MPN per 100ml (REC-1). It is State Water Board's position that based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in support of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirty-three of 84 samples exceeded the single sample water quality objective for E. coli in fresh water and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body-pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the staff recommendation and decided to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. USEPA Review and Conclusion: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following concerning E. coli and San Diego Creek Reach 1: "Two additional water bodies, San Diego Creek Reach 1 and Buck Gully Creek, show impairment by E. coli bacteria but are also identified as impaired by total and/or fecal coliform by the State. In these cases, EPA is not recommending listing for indicator bacteria for these reaches since they are already listed. The recent E. coli data for these two water bodies indicate that the previously identified total and/or fecal coliform impairments remain a concern." |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | _
State Board Review and Conclusion: The April 19, 2010 State Water Board staff report for the 2010 Integrated Report recommended to place this water body on the 303(d) list for Escherichia coli (E. coli) based on the following: As a result of State Board staff review State Water Board staff does not concur with RWQCB decision to not place this water body-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list. Listing Policy section 6.1 requires all readily available data and information shall be evaluated. In the absence of geometric mean information single sample data will be assessed. State Water Board staff agreed with the assessment contained in the associated LOE developed by Regional Board which is based on, water quality criteria of 235 MPN per 100ml (REC-1). It is State Water Board's position that based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in support of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Thirty-three of 84 samples exceeded the single sample water quality objective for E. coli in fresh water and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. At the June 15, 2010 State Water Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board directed staff to reevaluate the listing recommendation for this water body-pollutant combination. Based on this reevaluation, State Water Board staff continued to recommend to place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. At the August 4, 2010 State Water Board's follow-up Board meeting for approval of the 2010 Integrated Report, the State Water Board did not approve the staff recommendation and decided to not place this water body on the 303(d) list for E. coli. USEPA Review and Conclusion: The November 12, 2010 USEPA partial approval letter and the October 11, 2011 final approval letter both from Alexis Strauss, USEPA Region 9, to Tom Howard, SWRCB, concluded the following concerning E. coli and San Diego Creek Reach 1: "Two additional water bodies, San Diego Creek Reach 1 and Buck Gully Creek, show impairment by E. coli bacteria but are also identified as impaired by total and/or fecal coliform by the State. In these cases, EPA is not recommending listing for indicator bacteria for these reaches since they are already listed. The recent E. coli data for these two water bodies indicate that the previously identified total and/or fecal coliform impairments remain a concern." |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, the State Water Board recommends that this 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 being exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21555 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 84 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 33 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 84 samples collected, 33 exceeded EPA's Recommended single sample criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Orange County Coast Keeper Coastal Watersheds Project | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | USEPA Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria -1986: E. coli: log mean less than 126 organisms/100 mL based on five or more samples per 30day period, and single sample shall not exceed 235 organisms/100mL. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were taken at three stations: sd4, sd5, sd6. Sd4 - Woodbridge: The Woodbridge site is located off of Alton in the back left side of the senior citizen community center. The site is down the bank under the pedestrian footbridge, on the upstream side of the bridge.
Sd5 - Irvine Civic Center: This site is located behind the Irvine Civic center on Alton Drive in Irvine. The Civic Center site SD5 usually hosts a wide variety of bird life from mallard ducks to great Herons. Sd6 - Michelson: The Michelson site is located off of the 405 freeway and Jamboree west, to Michelson south, and then west on Riparian Way. The site is located down the dirt road just past the bridge. |
||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected once per month beginning with Oct 22, 2002 through Jun 21, 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might effect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The data's quality is deemed appropriate because it was obtained under the auspices of a QAPP approved by the Regional Board. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
5570 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2977 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Two samples were collected 3-4 hrs apart per sample event. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The CTR for arsenic freshwater chronic is 150 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000).
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two average samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6849 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| 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)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2979 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. All samples were reported below the detection limit for cadmium. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The hardness adjusted CTR freshwater chronic criteria for cadmium is 8.97 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000). The hardness adjust CTR is based on an average hardness throughout the monitoring period.
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6893 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2984 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Two samples were collected 3-4 hrs apart per sample event. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995).
The CTR for hardness adjusted copper freshwater chronic is 40.6 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000). The hardness is based on a average hardness throughout the monitoring period. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6850 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2980 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Two samples were collected 3-4 hrs apart per sample event. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The hardness adjusted CTR freshwater chronic criteria for lead is 23.9 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000).
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6827 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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)(2006) |
| 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. None of the 6 samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2978 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 6 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan narrative objective is: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Mercury CTR criteria for freshwater chronic for water and organisms is 0.050 ug/L (ppb). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and during dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6927 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2983 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Two samples were collected 3-4 hrs apart per sample event. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The hardness adjusted CTR for nickel is 232.3 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000). The hardness adjustment is based on the average hardness throughout the monitoring period.
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6865 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Silver |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2982 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Silver | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. All samples were below the detection limit for silver. (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The hardness adjusted CTR freshwater acute criteria for silver is 116.9 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000). The hardness adjusted CTR was based on the highest hardness during the monitoring period.
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4318 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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 3.2 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. A two samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1.The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2.The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 2 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective. Pursuant to table 3.2 of the Policy, more data is needed to determine if the water quality objective is exceeded. 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2976 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected in San Diego Creek, 1 at BARSED and 1 at WYL SED. Both samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters-streams, and all beneficial uses, the WQO for total dissolved solids in San Diego Creek, Reach 1 - below Jeffrey Road is a maximum of 1500 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at the San Diego Creek, sites BARSED and WYL SED. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 10/29/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6864 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| 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.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the four samples exceeded the CTR criteria, 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: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2981 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Of the 4 dissolved zinc samples, none exceeded the CTR chronic criteria. Two samples were collected approximately 3-4 hrs apart per sampling event/date at the same location. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event to equal 1 sample (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The hardness adjusted CTR freshwater chronic criterion for zinc is 528.5 ug/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000). The hardness adjustment is based on the average hardness throughout the monitoring period.
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2, and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
7271 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Other Urban Runoff | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 4430 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4430 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2007 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A large number of samples exceed the California Toxic Rule (CTR) criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 4 samples exceeded the CTR chronic saltwater criteria and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2975 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria. Two samples were collected 3-4 hrs apart per sample event. Therefore, the results of the two samples were averaged per sample event (Bay and Greenstein, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the CTR, the freshwater chronic standard for selenium is 5 µg/L (ppb) (USEPA, 2000).
The concentration of toxic substance in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses (SARWQCB, 1995). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from Campus Drive Bridge at San Diego Creek, Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on March 7, May 2, August 12 and November 8, 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Two averaged samples were collected during wet weather (March 7 and November 8, 2002) and two averaged samples were collected in dry weather (May 2 and August 12, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SCCWRP QAPP was used. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6814 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.5 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the NAS Guideline for the protection of aquatic life from bioaccumulation of toxic substances. Under section 3.5 of the Listing Policy any water body segment where tissue pollutant levels in organisms exceed a pollutant-specific evaluation guideline shall be placed on the section 303(d) list. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of 13 tissue samples exceeded the NAS guideline for Toxaphene and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | USEPA approved the listing of this water body as a water quality limited segment requiring a TMDL for this pollutant. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2985 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxaphene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Red shiner whole tissue samples were taken in San Diego Creek Reach 1 from 1995-2003. During that time, fish tissue toxaphene concentrations exceeded the NAS guideline in 4 out of 13 tissue samples (TSMP, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Santa Ana River Basin RWQCB Basin Plan: Toxic substances shall not be discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are harmful to human health. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | 100 ng/g or 100 ppb ww [NAS Guideline (whole fish)] (NAS, 1972). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sampling occurred in San Diego Creek Reach 1. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 1995-2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Toxic Substances Monitoring Program 1992-93 and 1994-95 Data Reports. Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 1996-2000. Department of Fish and Game Environmental Chemistry Quality Assurance and Data Report for the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, 2001-2002. Department of Fish and Game. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4139 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Nutrients |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Newport Bay Watershed Nutrient TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 156 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/01/1999 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
The Newport Bay Watershed Nutrient TMDL was completed in 1999. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list during the 2002 listing cycle. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2973 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nutrients | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4190 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Pesticides |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Unknown Nonpoint Source |
| TMDL Name: | Newport Bay Watershed Organochlorine Compounds TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 161 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 02/13/2004 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
The Newport Bay Watershed Diazinon/Chlorpyrifos TMDL was approved by RWQCB on April 4, 2003 and subsequently approved by USEPA on February 13, 2004. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2972 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pesticides | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4140 |
Region 8 |
San Diego Creek Reach 1 |
||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: | Newport Bay Watershed Sediment TMDL |
| TMDL Project Code: | 160 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 04/16/1999 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 2.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
San Diego Creek - Reach 1/2 Sedimentation TMDL was completed in 1999. This water segment-pollutant combination was moved off the section 303(d) list during the 2002 listing cycle. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 2974 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| 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): | |||||