| Water Body Name: | Jamul Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9103300020081031153832 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
16481 |
Region 9 |
Jamul Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | Ammonia as Nitrogen | Manganese | Nickel | Orthophosphate | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | Total Suspended Solids (TSS) |
| 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. None of the 28 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 28 samples exceeded the Basin Plan objectives for inorganic chemicals 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 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: | 26390 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | Ammonia as Nitrogen | Manganese | Nickel | Orthophosphate | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | Total Suspended Solids (TSS) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 28 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Twenty-eight samples were collected at Jamul Creek station (910OTJAM4) during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003, for conventional inorganics analyses (SWAMP, 2007), none of the 28 samples exceeded evaluation concentrations. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Ammonia as N 0.025 mg/l, nitrite as N 1.mg/l, nitrogen total Kjeldahl (If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used), ortho phosphate as P total 0.05 mg/l, sulfate 250 mg/l. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Jamul Creek station (910OTJAM4); (Latitude 32.6369, Longitude -116.8842). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
17896 |
Region 9 |
Jamul Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 2 of 3 samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. 2 of 3 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of 5 samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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: | 26396 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples of IBI data were taken from November 2000 to May 2001 at two sampling sites. Of the total number of samples, two exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish and Game IBI Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at two sites: 910JCOLRx and 910JCGSxx on Jamul Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during between November 2000 to May 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". | ||||
| Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure | |||||
| The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan | |||||
DECISION ID |
16479 |
Region 9 |
Jamul Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Metals |
| 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 3.1 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 3 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the 3 samples exceeded the CTR values for a number of metals 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: | 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: | 26388 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Metals | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4(910OTJAM4) during the months of January, April and May 2003 for the following constituents: aluminum dissolved, arsenic dissolved, cadmium dissolved, copper dissolved, selenium dissolved, silver dissolved, zinc dissolved (SWAMP, 2007), none of the 3 samples exceeded the metals evaluation concentrations. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life Water Quality Control for the San Diego Basin, 2007.
The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for aluminum is 1.0 mg/l. From the California Toxic Rules, the dissolved chronic criterion for arsenic is 150 µg/l (ppb), cadmium 2.2 µg/l (ppb), copper is 9.0 µg/l (ppb), selenium 5.0 µg/l (ppb), zinc is 120 µg/l (ppb), chromium is 11 µg/l (ppb), lead 2.5 µg/l (ppb), and dissolved acute criterion for silver 3.4 µg/l (ppb). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| 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: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4(910OTJAM4); (Latitude 32.6369, Longitude -116.8842). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples at Jamul Creek were collected during the months of January, April, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during wet-between storm events, wet-high base flow, and declining base flow conditions. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California 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 |
16480 |
Region 9 |
Jamul Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
| 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 3.1 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. Zero of the 3 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 3 samples exceeded the CTR values for PAHs 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: | 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: | 26389 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4(910OTJAM4) during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003, for PAHs analyses. Analyses included: Acenaphthene, Anthracene, Benz(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Chrysene, Fluoranthene, and Fluorene. None of the 3 samples exceeded evaluation concentration. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water designated for use as domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels specified in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Table 64444-A of section 64444 (Organic Chemicals) which is incorporated by reference into this plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Evaluation guidelines used came California Toxics Rule for Human Health Risk. Acenaphthene;1200 ug/l, Anthracene;9,600 ug/l, Benz(a)anthracene; 4.4 ug/l, Benzo(b)fluoranthene; 4.4 ug/l, Benzo(k)fluoranthene; 4.4 ug/l, Chrysene; 4.4 ug/l, Fluoranthene; 300 ug/l, and Fluorene; 1300 ug/l. | ||||
| Guideline 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 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4(910OTJAM4); (Latitude 32.6369, Longitude -116.8842). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California 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 |
16478 |
Region 9 |
Jamul Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
| Revision Status | Revised |
| Sources: | Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the three samples exceed the water quality objective for toxicity. 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. 2 of 3 samples exceed the water quality objective for toxicity 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: | 26511 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two sediment samples were collected and none showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the Hyalella azteca, Survival and Growth test. The test results are from California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report (2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, all waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to SWAMP, waters are considered toxic when samples show significant toxicity levels (SWAMP code SL) when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5% and percent control values less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport. Order No. R9-2007-0001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4, 910OTJAM4;(Latitude 32.63693, Longitude -116.88422). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in January, April, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control 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 | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26150 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two out of the 3 samples collected show significant toxicity levels (SL) to the green alga, Selenastrum Capricornutum, growth test. One of three samples collected show significant toxicity levels in the ten days survival test on Hyalella azteca, Survival and Growth test. Ceriodaphnia dubia, one test was conducted but did not show significant toxicity. The test results are from California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report (2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, all waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to SWAMP, waters are considered toxic when samples show significant toxicity levels (SWAMP code SL) when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5% and percent control values less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport. Order No. R9-2007-0001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Jamul Creek station 4, 910OTJAM4;(Latitude 32.63693, Longitude -116.88422). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in January, April, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control 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 | ||||