| Water Body Name: | Walker Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR2011201319980928173807 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
68382 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Mine Tailings |
| TMDL Name: | Walker Creek Mercury |
| TMDL Project Code: | 69 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 09/29/2008 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 2.2 and 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 4.1 of the Policy, a minimum of one line of evidence is needed to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. 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 CWA section 303(d) List. There is sufficient justification to place it in the Being Addressed portion of the CWA 303(d) List because a TMDL has been completed and approved by RWQCB and USEPA, and is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One of one samples exceeded the evaluation guideline and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. The Walker Creek Mercury TMDL was approved by USEPA on 9/29/2008. 5. 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 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3714 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Tissue | ||||
| Matrix: | Tissue | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms | ||||
| 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93477 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93476 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Mercury. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for mercury is 1.06 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76824 |
Region 2 |
Walker 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of ten samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 29283 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten water column samples were assessed. None of the samples exceeded the objectives. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | 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 Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | National Recommendations for Water Quality Criteria, Gold Book, USEPA,1986. Alakalinity standard at 20000 ug/L (chronic). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were taken from four monitoring locations (201WLK030, 201WLK090, 201WLK100, and 201WLK140). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were taken from dry, spring and wet seasons. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The QA/QC was in compliance with SWAMP's Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
77687 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of ten samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28054 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Ten water samples were assessed for total ammonia and un-ionized ammonia. None of them exceeded the evaluation criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving water to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess of 0.025mg/l annual median. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | For Total Ammonia: EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure." | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Four monitoring locations (WLK030, WLK090, WLK100, and WLK140) were sampled for ammonia. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from three seasons: dry, spring and wet. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The QA was in compliance with SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88761 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Chlordane | Chrysene (C1-C4) | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Heptachlor epoxide | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
| 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: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28514 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Chlordane | Chrysene (C1-C4) | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Heptachlor epoxide | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Concentrations of anthracene, fluorene, napthalene, phenanthrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthrene, pyrene, PAH (total), PCB (total), chlordane, dieldrin, DDD/DDE/DDT, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, and HCH, gamma in one sediment sample collected in spring 2005 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) Anthracene - 845 ug/kg; Fluorene - 536 ug/kg; Naphthalene - 561 ug/kg;
Phenanthrene -1170 ug/kg; Benz(a)anthracene - 1050 ug/kg; Benzo(a)pyrene - 1450 ug/kg; Chrysene - 1290 ug/kg; Fluoranthene - 2230 ug/kg; Pyrene - 1520 ug/kg; PAH (total) - 22800 ug/kg; PCB (total) - 676 ug/kg; Chlordane - 17.6 ug/kg; Dieldrin - 61.8 ug/kg; DDD (sum op + pp) - 28 ug/kg; DDE (sum op + pp) - 31.3 ug/kg; DDT (sum op + pp) - 62.9 ug/kg; DDT (total) - 572 ug/kg; Endrin - 207 ug/kg; Heptachlor epoxide - 16 ug/kg; HCH, gamma - 4.99 ug/kg. |
||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected from "watershed integrator' site on Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in October of 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98420 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 of the Listing Policy, but these data are not attached to this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93541 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93542 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Arsenic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for arsenic is 33 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
88762 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under 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 these pollutants. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28662 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc in one sediment sample collected in October 2001 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) arsenic - 33 mg/kg dw; cadmium - 4.98 mg/kg dw; chromium - 111 mg/kg dw; copper - 149 mg/kg dw; lead - 128 mg/kg dw; mercury - 1.06 mg/kg dw; nickel - 48.6 mg/kg dw; zinc - 459 mg/kg dw. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in October of 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100091 |
Region 2 |
Walker 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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record. The CSCI score for this site was 1.012428.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. The CSCI score for this site was 1.012428. Additionally, this water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. The State Water Board has redefined the Integrated Reporting categories in order to make them more reflective of actual water quality conditions in the State. This revision allows for the inclusion of minimally disturbed data reference sites that were identified in the development of the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) tool into Category 1. Reference sites are the core of the State¿s statewide biological and habitat assessment program and set the benchmark for biological conditions expected when human activity in the landscape is absent or minimal. Unless there is any additional data showing that beneficial uses in a water body are not being supported, these reference water bodies along with any other bioassessment data sets showing a score of 0.92 or higher will be placed in Category 1 (all core beneficial uses are supported). 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. Regional Board staff do not want to place this water body into Category 1 at this time. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | Regional Board staff do not want to place this water body into Category 1 at this time. |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 96010 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The CSCI score for this site is 1.012428 and is therefore meeting the water quality objective for this water body. This water body passed several screening criteria and was identified as a reference water body for the purposes of developing the CSCI. Reference sites where human disturbance is absent or minimal are used to set benchmark expectations for healthy streams. A large set of nearly 600 reference sites representing the broad diversity of natural stream types found across California was used to develop the CSCI. | ||||
| Data Reference: | RWB2 Reference Study Monitoring 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rhen, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sampling was done at to following station: 201WLK190 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling was done on 4/16/2001 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98833 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93543 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93551 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Bifenthrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98872 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93552 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93553 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for cadmium is 4.98 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98873 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 90716 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 samples collected exceeded the criteria for chlordane concentration (Sum of trans-Chlordane, cis-Chlordane, cis-Nonachlor, trans-Nonachlor, and Oxychlordane). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Probable Effect Concentration for Chlordane in freshwater sediments is 17.6 ug/kg(MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 201WLK160 (Walker Creek Ranch). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98874 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93555 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93554 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for chlorpyrifos is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.77 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample (Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
88763 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chromium |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93566 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28770 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium (total) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Chromium exceeded the PEC (sediment quality guidelines) with a sample value of 114 mg/kg in one sediment sample collected in October 2001. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) chromium - 111 mg/kg dw. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in October of 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93565 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Chromium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for chromium is 111 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98927 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93568 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93567 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for copper is 149 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98928 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93578 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93569 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyfluthrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98929 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93579 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93580 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cyhalothrin, lambda, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98985 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93581 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93582 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Cypermethrin, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98986 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93592 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93591 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDD. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDD is 28.0 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
98987 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93594 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93593 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDE. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDE is 31.3 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99042 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93500 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93501 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for total DDTs is 572 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93605 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93595 | ||||
| Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for DDT. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for sum of DDT is 62.9 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99043 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93606 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93607 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Deltamethrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99044 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93609 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93608 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for diazinon is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 11 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 11 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for diazinon from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99095 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93454 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93455 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Dieldrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for dieldrin is 61.8 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99096 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Endrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93456 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93457 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Endrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for endrin is 207 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99097 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93462 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93458 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99145 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93463 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93464 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Fenpropathrin. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. ( 2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99146 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Lead |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93466 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93465 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for lead is 128 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99147 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93475 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93474 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for HCH, gamma. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for Lindane (gamma-HCH) is 4.99 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99201 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93478 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93487 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Methyl Parathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Parathion, Methyl. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for methyl parathion is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 6 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 6 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for methyl parathion from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77070 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nickel |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Five lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of two samples exceed the guideline. Zero of two samples exhibited sediment toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. Two of two samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. There is not an associated sediment toxicity data as required by Section 3.6 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. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93489 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28835 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Toxicity testing of sediments | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data used to evaluate sediment toxicity comprise one sediment sample collected by the SWAMP in 2001. No toxicity or adverse effects were exhibited for Hyallela azteca. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. Sample toxicity was determined by comparing mean organism response in samples and in negative controls. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether the sediment exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322¿1329 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample was collected in 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93488 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nickel. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for nickel is 48.6 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28769 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Nickel exceeded the PEC (sediment quality guidelines) with a sample value of 73.7 mg/kg in one sediment sample collected in October 2001. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (threshold effect concentration) nickel - 48.6 mg/kg dw. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in October of 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93502 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One sample was collected to evaluate sediment toxicity. The sample did not exhibit significant toxicity. The toxicity test included survival and growth of Hyalella azteca. One sample can have multiple toxicity test results but will be counted only once. One sample is defined as being collected on the same day at the same location with the same lab sample id (if provided). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| 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. Region 2 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Toxicity is defined as a statistically significant effect in the sample exposure compared to the control using EPA-recommended hypothesis testing. . For SWAMP data exceedances are counted with the significant effect code SL. SL is defined as the result being significant compared to the negative control based on a statistical test, less than stated the alpha level, AND less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Methods for Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment-associated Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MI , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-99/064 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The sample was collected at station 201WLK160. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The sample was collected in June 2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All data was collected following the Standard Operating Procedures and Data Quality Objectives outlined in the SWAMP QAMP, (Puckett, 2002). QA data are included in submission. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77334 |
Region 2 |
Walker 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 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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of nine samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 29012 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two or three locations. The 7-day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen was computed for 5 out of 9 deployments. The values ranged from 8.08 to 10.75 mg/L and did not fall below the 5.0 mg/L minimum. The length of monitoring in the remaining 4 deployments was shorter that 7 days. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 5.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as warm water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Dissolved oxygen was measured at two or three sites per season located throughout the Walker Creek watershed. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 5 to 14 days during spring, two dry seasons, and winter wet season throughout 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 29013 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two or three locations. The 7-day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen was computed for 5 out of 9 deployments. The values ranged from 8.08 to 10.75 mg/L and did not fall below the 7.0 mg/L minimum. The length of monitoring in the remaining 4 deployments was shorter that 7 days. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 7.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as cold water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Dissolved oxygen was measured at two to four sites throughout the watershed. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 5 to 14 days during spring, two dry seasons, and winter wet season throughout 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
99202 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 90580 | ||||
| Pollutant: | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 1 sample collected for Total PCBs exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity) for total PCB is 676 ug/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at the following station 201WLK160 (Walker Creek Ranch). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected on 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The SWAMP QAPP (2008) was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
99203 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin |
| 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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93490 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93491 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Permethrin, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
72492 |
Region 2 |
Walker 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: | One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this water body. Based on the readily available data for this water body, 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. Temperature measurements at 7 continuous deployments exceeded the applicable water quality objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat on only two occasions and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 8768 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Walker Creek Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in Winter 2001, and Spring 2002. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at 5 locations.
The 14.8 °C criterion for coho salmon was exceeded in 2 out of 7 continuous temperature deployments during the dry summer season at the downstream reach of the creek. The 17 °C criterion for steelhead was never exceeded. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries are specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions to the plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sullivan et al. (2000) reviewed a wide range of studies incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches and developed criteria for assessing temperature risk to aquatic life. The 7-day mean temperature (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) of 14.8°C was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0°C for steelhead trout. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that temperatures exceeding the above thresholds will cause 10% reduction in average growth compared to optimal conditions. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | There were 5 locations on Walker Creek ranging from lower to upper watershed regions. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Continuous deployments with 15 minute increment sampling in Winter 2001 and Spring 2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Walker Creek watershed has a drainage area of 73 square miles, mostly in northwestern Marin County, with a small portion in Sonoma County. Significant tributaries to Walker Creek include Keys Creek (also known as Keyes), which flows through the gentle hills east of Tomales,
joining Walker Creek near Tomales Bay; Chileno Creek, which flows through Chileno Valley; and, in the upper watershed, Salmon Creek and Arroyo Sausal Creek, which flow through Hicks Valley. Frink and Verde Canyons each support ephemeral streams that join Walker Creek upstream from Chileno Creek. Soulajule Reservoir impounds the 15 square mile drainage of Arroyo Sausal. |
||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
88764 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| 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 section 303(d) list under section 3.6 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. Zero 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 one sample exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28835 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Toxicity testing of sediments | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data used to evaluate sediment toxicity comprise one sediment sample collected by the SWAMP in 2001. No toxicity or adverse effects were exhibited for Hyallela azteca. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. Sample toxicity was determined by comparing mean organism response in samples and in negative controls. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether the sediment exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322¿1329 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Walker Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample was collected in 2001. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
99257 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Zinc |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(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 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of one samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 one samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93503 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 93504 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP data for Walker Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Statewide Stream Pollution Trends Study 2008 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan 2007: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or which 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: | In freshwater sediments the probable effect concentration (predictive of sediment toxicity for sediment-dwelling organisms) for zinc is 459 mg/Kg dry weight (MacDonald et al. 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for Walker Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ Walker Creek Ranch station (201WLK160)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 6/18/2008. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | SWAMP data collected before September 2008 followed the QAMP (2002), however there may have been overlap in QA with SWAMP QAPP (2008). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Program Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
77202 |
Region 2 |
Walker 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 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. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of eleven samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 29008 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2002. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at between two and four sites. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 11 times at 2 to 4 monitoring locations during wet, spring and two dry seasons. The pH ranged from 6.63 to 9.07. The pH exceeded the threshold of 8.5 in two out of 11 deployments. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The 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 Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | pH was measured at between two and four sites located throughout the Walker Creek watershed. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | In 2002 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals for periods of 5 to 14 days in each of four times: winter (2 sites), spring (3 sites), and two summer dry season (2 and 4 sites). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002). | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version) | ||||
DECISION ID |
68529 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nutrients |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2022 |
| 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3715 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nutrients | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Unspecified | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Unspecified | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68576 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2013 |
| 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: | 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3716 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sedimentation/Siltation | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 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: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Unspecified | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Unspecified | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69909 |
Region 2 |
Walker Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens |
| 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: | Tomales Bay Pathogens |
| TMDL Project Code: | 10 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: | 01/10/2007 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | USEPA placed this waterbody-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) because the USEPA approved Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL included this water body segment. The Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL was approved by USEPA on 1/10/07. |
| 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. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 1766 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Narrative Description Data | ||||
| Matrix: | -N/A | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Shellfish Harvesting | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | In the USEPA final decision for the 2006 303(d) list added a Walker Creek-pathogens listing because the USEPA approved Tomales Bay TMDL includes Walker Creek. This is a placeholder LOE for this USEPA addition to the 303(d) list. | ||||
| 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): | |||||