Draft California 2020 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name:	Saratoga Creek
Water Body ID:	CAR2055004019990218133956
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	99865	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Trash
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
Expected Attainment Date:	2029
Implementation Action Other than TMDL:	This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody.
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.11, listing may be proposed based on the situation-specific weight of evidence. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The line of evidence consists of data from field visits/trash surveys conducted according to the Urban Rapid Trash Assessment (URTA) methodology developed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Based on the readily available trash assessment data for this waterbody, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination to the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. Data have been evaluated that supports this decision. 2. The Urban Rapid Trash Assessment methodology results showed that this waterbody had transportable, Persistent, Buoyant Litter parameter scores in the marginal urban and poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at one location on two different dates in 2004 and 2006. 3. This waterbody is considered impaired by trash because there were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date. 4. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 5. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy. 6. This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99865, Trash	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

5662

Pollutant:

Trash

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Nuisance

Matrix:

Not Specified

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

Data results were obtained through application of the Urban Rapid Trash Assessment (URTA) methodology, developed by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. The URTA is a modification of the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The URTA method documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for level of trash (relating to REC2) and transportable, persistent, buoyant litter (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in December 2004 and October 2006 according to the Urban Rapid Trash Assessment (URTA) methodology. This waterbody had transportable, Persistent, Buoyant Litter parameter scores in the marginal urban and poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at one location on two different dates in 2004 and 2006.

Data Reference:

Spreadsheet of Urban Rapid Trash Assessment (URTA) data collected by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, 2004-2007

SWAMP Data:

Non-SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of Rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

If the URTA Parameter 3 (Transportable, Persistent, Buoyant Litter) is in the marginal urban or poor condition category (scores 0-10), then WILD is not supported. The URTA defines marginal urban or poor condition for this parameter as follows. this level of trash is a medium prevalence (76-200 pieces) or large amount (>200 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter such as: hard or soft plastics, styrofoam, balloons, cigarette butts. These types of items are all detrimental to aquatic life.

Guideline Reference:

Memo: Development of Urban Rapid Trash Assessment Protocol. March 13, 2006

Spatial Representation:

URTA data were collected for this waterbody at one location in December 2004 and October 2006.

Temporal Representation:

URTA data were collected for this waterbody on two dates in December 2004 and October 2006.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

Data were collected by trained staff in accordance with URTA methodology developed by SCVURPPP and are deemed reliable and of sufficient quality on which to base listing determinations.

QAPP Information Reference(s):


DECISION ID	98428	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Alkalinity as CaCO3
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the . Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four samples exceeded the criteria for alkalinity and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98428, Alkalinity as CaCO3	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93231

Pollutant:

Alkalinity as CaCO3

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Alkalinity as CaCO3.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that
adversely affect any designated beneficial use.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

The Alkalinity as CaCO3 criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life is 20000 ug/L (National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2009).

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Data for this line of evidence for Saratoga Creek was collected at 4 monitoring sites [ Saratoga near Hakone Gardens - 205SAR080, Saratoga inside SCVWD gate - below Walnut Ave - 205SAR070, Saratoga behind Lutheran school - Saratoga Ave and Braemar - 205SAR060, Saratoga above Congress Springs Park - 205SAR057]

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	97932	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Ammonia (Unionized)
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the criteria for Ammonia. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four samples exceeded the criteria for ammonia and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97932, Ammonia (Unionized)	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93232

Pollutant:

Ammonia (Unionized)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Fish Spawning

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

0 of 4 samples exceed the Maximum for the Lower Bay at 0.4 mg/L Un-ionized Ammonia (as N). Un-ionized ammonia (as N) was calculated from Total Ammonia (as N) from monthly samples reported in the data. The data values are reported as underneath the quantitation limit. These values under the quantitation limit are less than or equal to the water quality standard, the value will be considered as meeting the water quality standard, objective, criterion, or evaluation guideline.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQCB 2011): All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Samples were collected at 205SAR05 (Saratoga above Congress Springs Park), 205SAR060 (Saratoga behind Lutheran school - Saratoga Ave and Braemar), 205SAR070 (Saratoga inside SCVWD gate - below Walnut Ave) and 205SAR080 (Saratoga near Hakone Gardens).

Temporal Representation:

Samples collected on 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

QAPP Information:

SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	97933	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the criteria for Nitrate/Nitrite.. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of four samples exceeded the criteria for Nitrate/Nitrite and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 97933, Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93237

Pollutant:

Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrate/Nitrite as N.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrate + nitrite (as N) that is incorporated by reference in the Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region is 10.0 mg/L (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	99826	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the Nitrogen guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of eight samples exceeded the Nitrogen, ammonia criteria and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99826, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93234

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that
adversely affect any designated beneficial use.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia – Freshwater (USEPA 2013): the 30-day rolling average concentration (criterion continuous concentration or CCC) of total ammonia nitrogen(in mg TAN/L) in freshwater are not to be exceeded more than once every three years on average. The CCC values are based on pH and temperature. The CCC formula is found on page 46 and the table of CCC values is on page 49.

Guideline Reference:

Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99826, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93236

Pollutant:

Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Total

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia as N, Total.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that
adversely affect any designated beneficial use.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

USEPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2011 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. (EPA EPA 820-R-11-002, 2011).

Guideline Reference:

2011 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	98705	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Oxygen, Dissolved
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 4 samples exceed the objective for dissolved oxygen. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of 4 samples exceeded the objective for dissolved oxygen and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98705, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93239

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat shall be of a 7.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 98705, Oxygen, Dissolved	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93238

Pollutant:

Oxygen, Dissolved

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

Dissolved

Beneficial Use:

Warm Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Oxygen, Dissolved.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as warm water habitat shall be of a 5.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	99825	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Specific Conductivity
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of four samples exceed the objective for specific conductivity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero out of four samples exceed the objective for specific conductivity and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 99825, Specific Conductivity	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93249

Pollutant:

Specific Conductivity

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Municipal & Domestic Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Conductivity(Us).

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The California Secondary MCL for Specific Conductance is 900 us/cm (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Region).

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449.

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	82359	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Temperature, water
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of four samples exceed the guideline for temperature. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero out of four samples exceed the guideline for temperature] and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 82359, Temperature, water	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93250

Pollutant:

Temperature, water

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Water Temperature.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.)

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Inland Fishes of California (Moyle 1976) states that for rainbow trout the optimum range for growth and completion of most life stages is 13-21 degrees C (page 129).

Guideline Reference:

Inland Fishes of California

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	100008	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	pH
Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Regional Board Conclusion:	This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line(s) of evidence are necessary to assess listing status. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero out of four samples exceed the objective for pH. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero out of four samples exceed the objective for pH and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100008, pH	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93241

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Agricultural Supply

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.22 Constituents of Concern for Municipal and Agricultural Water Supplies states: At a minimum, surface waters designated for use as agricultural supply (AGR) shall not contain concentrations of constituents in excess of the levels specified in Table 3-6. The limit for pH ranges from 4.5-9.0.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 100008, pH	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

93247

Pollutant:

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

State Water Board staffassessed SWAMP data for Saratoga Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for pH.

Data Reference:

RWB2 Urbanization Study 2008

SWAMP Data:

SWAMP

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:

The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region’s water quality objective for all surface waters states the following: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels.

Objective/Criterion Reference:

Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2)

Evaluation Guideline:

Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:

Temporal Representation:

Data was collected on a single day 5/21/2008.

Environmental Conditions:

Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data.

QAPP Information:

The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed.

QAPP Information Reference(s):

Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan


DECISION ID	70031	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

Pollutant:	Diazinon
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)(2016)
Revision Status	Original
Sources:	A Source Unknown
TMDL Name:	San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon
TMDL Project Code:	9
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA:	05/16/2007
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. The USEPA final decision on the 2006 303(d) list was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007).

Regional Board Decision Recommendation:	This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed.

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.

Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 70031, Diazinon	Region 2
Saratoga Creek

LOE ID:

1814

Pollutant:

Diazinon

LOE Subgroup:

Pollutant-Water

Matrix:

Water

Fraction:

None

Beneficial Use:

Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:

Number of Exceedances:

Data and Information Type:

Not Specified

Data Used to Assess Water Quality:

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):