| Water Body Name: | Forester Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9071300020010924120240 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
5024 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of ten of samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygen. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the 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. Three of ten of samples exceeded the water quality objective for dissolved oxygenand this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 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 because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3342 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected at Forester Creek by the City of El Cajon in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Three of 10 averages were below 7.0 mg/L, which is more than 10% of the time (SWRCB, 2003) | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with designated MAR or WARM beneficial uses or less than 6.0 mg/l in waters with designated COLD beneficial uses. The annual mean dissolved oxygen concentrations shall not be less than 7 mg/l more than 10% of the time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek. The exact sample location is unknown. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Averages were reported. It is unknown how many samples were collected per month. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
5090 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Regional Board Conclusion:
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. Three of 10 samples exceeded the Basin Plan criteria, and these 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. State Board Review and Conclusion: The original listing in 2006 applied Table 3.1 where the minimum sample requirement is 2 samples. However, Region 9 considers phosphate a conventional pollutant and as such, Table 3.2 should have been applied with a minimum requirement of 5 samples. State Board staff has re-evaluated the original listing and made the recommendation to Delist for phosporus. The revised recommendation is as follows: This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4 of the Listing Policy. Under this section an existing listing may be removed if the listing was based on faulty data and it is demonstrated that the listing would not have occurred in the absence of such faulty data. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of ten samples exceed the water quality objective for phosphorus. According to table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, for sample size of ten, the water body pollutant combination should be listed if the number of exceedences is equal or are greater than five. The three exceedances do not exceed the allowable frequency in table 3.2. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of removing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 10 samples exceeded the Basin Plan criteria, and these do not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. This pollutant should not have been listed in 2006. 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 following changes to the decision:
The water body-pollutant combination should be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3344 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. Three of 10 averages were at or in exceedance of the standard. | ||||
| 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 other flowing waters, with all beneficial uses, the WQO for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L. This appears to be desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters; not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek. The exact sampling location was not reported. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. It is unknown how many samples the monthly average represents. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
16706 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| 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. Four of the 4 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. Four of the 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded due to limited samples. |
| 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: | 9012 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected at Forrester Creek 2 station 907SDFRC2 in May 2004, September 2004; February 2005; and April 2005. All showed excessive nitrogen concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forrester Creek station 2(907SDFRC2). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in May 2004, September 2004, February 2005, and April 2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
16462 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| 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. Three of 4 samples exceed the secondary drinking water MCL. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of 4 samples exceed the secondary drinking water MCL and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 9013 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Non-fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutant only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected at Forrester Creek station 2 in March 2002, April 2002, June 2002, and September 2002. Three showed excessive sulfate concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The recommended secondary drinking water standards for sulfate is 250 mg/l (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forrester Creek station 2(907SDFRC2). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in March 2002, April 2002, June 2002, and September 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
16463 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| 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 3.1 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. Four of the 4 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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 exceed the CTR value for Se 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: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| 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: | 9014 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Non-fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutant only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four water samples were collected at Forrester Creek station 2 (907SDFRC2) in May 2004, September 2004, April 2005, and February 2005, all showed excessive selenium concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR Freshwater Chronic (CCC) 5 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forrester Creek station 2(907SDFRC2). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in May 2004, September 2004, April 2005, and February 2005. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
5025 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| 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)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Agricultural Return Flows | Flow Alteration/Regulation/Modification | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Ten of the 10 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria. Even though the number of samples is insufficient to determine with the confidence and power of the Listing Policy, a minimum of 61 samples would be needed before 10 exceedances would result in a delisting of this pollutant for this waterbody.
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 on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| 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: | 3343 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. Ten of 10 averages 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 with all beneficial uses, the WQO for TDS is 500. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek. The exact sampling location was not reported. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 09/1997 and monthly from 04/2000-12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. It is unknown how often samples were collected during each month. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
4942 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| 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)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Habitat Modification | Industrial Point Sources | Spills | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the 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. Thirty-eight of 48 samples exceeded the Basin Plan's water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. 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: | 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: | 3341 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon in 09/1997 and 04/2000-12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. None of the 10 averages 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 and all beneficial uses, the WQO for pH is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek. Location of sampling is unknown. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in 09/1997 and 04/2000-12/2000. Monthly averages are reported. It is unknown how many samples were collected per month. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3338 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 14 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon from 09/19994 to 01/2001. Fourteen of 14 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 and all beneficial uses, the WQO for pH is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected in Forester Creek, North of I-8 between Magnolia and Johnson. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Oldest data used is almost 10 years old at time of assessment. Samples were collected from 09/27/1994 to 01/03/2001. Two samples each were collected in 09/1994, 05/1996, 11/1997, 01/1999, 06/1999, and 01/2001. One sample each was collected in 12/1999, and 07/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3337 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Ancillary Evidence Spills | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health referral form indicates that 10-20 gallons of an acid/water/copper mixture (pH of 2-3) spilled into Forester Creek on 05/01/2001. The spill was reported to the County of San Diego DEH by Randy Olms (employee at Chem-tronics). The complaint was referred to the City of El Cajon. It is reported that an emergency response team was on scene to conduct the clean up.County of San Diego DEH referral says that an emergency response team was on the scene to conduct a cleanup of the spill. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH value shall not be changed at any time more than 0.2 pH units from that which occurs naturally. Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.2 units in waters with designated marine (MAR), or estuarine (EST), or saline (SAL) beneficial uses. Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 units in fresh waters with designated cold freshwater habitat (COLD) or warm freshwater habitat (WARM) beneficial uses. In bays and estuaries the pH shall not be depressed below 7.0 nor raised above 9.0. In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The corresponding numeric objective for pH from the Basin Plan for inland surface waters with all beneficial uses is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The spill occurred from 1150 W. Bradley Av., El Cajon, CA 92020 (Chem-tronics, Inc.). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The spill occurred on 05/01/2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | It was noted in the referral form that the acid spilled into a dry bed. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. QA=? | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3336 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Ancillary Evidence Spills | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A letter from the City of El Cajon, by Richard C. Odiorne, City Engineer, was written to Julian Medina at Chem-tronics, Inc, in El Cajon, CA. The letter is dated July 6, 2000 and documents a 1000 gallons sodium hydroxide spill from Chem-tronic, Inc, that occurred on July 5, 2000.The letter from Richard Odiorne (City of El Cajon) asks that Chem-tronics, inc. ensure that they have Best Management Practices in place for spill preventions and cleanup. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: The pH value shall not be changed at any time more than 0.2 pH units from that which occurs naturally. Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.2 units in waters with designated marine (MAR), or estuarine (EST), or saline (SAL) beneficial uses. Changes in normal ambient pH levels shall not exceed 0.5 units in fresh waters with designated cold freshwater habitat (COLD) or warm freshwater habitat (WARM) beneficial uses. In bays and estuaries the pH shall not be depressed below 7.0 nor raised above 9.0. In inland surface waters the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The corresponding numeric objective for pH from the Basin Plan for inland surface waters with all beneficial uses is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | A sodium hydroxide spill occurred in the Forester Creek Channel from Chem-tronics, Inc. 1150 West Bradley Av., El Cajon, CA 92020. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The spill occurred on July 5, 2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. QA=? | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3340 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon from 09/1994 to 01/2001. Twelve of 12 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 and all beneficial uses, the WQO for pH is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek Channel at North City Limit. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Age of oldest data assessed is almost 10 years at time of assessment. Samples were collected from 09/27/1994 to 01/03/2001. Two samples per month were collected in 09/1994, 05/1996, 11/1997, 01/1999, and 01/2001. One sample per month was also collected in 06/1999 and 07/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3339 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH (high) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 12 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon from 09/1994 to 01/2001. Twelve of 12 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 and all beneficial uses, the WQO for pH is 6.5 (minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek North of Vernon Way between Johnson and Marshall. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Oldest data used is just under 10 years old at time of assessment. Samples were collected from 09/27/1994 to 01/03/2001. Two samples were collected per month in 09/1994, 05/1996, 11/1997, 01/1999, and 01/2001. One sample was collected per month in 06/1999 and 07/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
5091 |
Region 9 |
Forester 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)(2006) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy.
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. |
| 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 the available data and information, SWRCB 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 exceeded. |
| USEPA Action (if applicable): | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3345 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Industrial Service Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the City of El Cajon from 04/2000 to 12/2000. None of the 9 averages were in exceedance of the above standards. (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for turbidity is 5 units. For inland surface waters with other beneficial uses, the WQO for turbidity is 20 ntu. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Forester Creek. The exact sampling location was not reported. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 04/2000 to 12/2000. Only monthly averages were reported. It is unknown how many samples per month the monthly average represents. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
6101 |
Region 9 |
Forester Creek |
||
| 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: | Spills | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2005 |
| 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 Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| 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: | 4452 | ||||
| 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): | |||||