| Water Body Name: | Petaluma River |
| Water Body ID: | CAR2063002019980928165716 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
88894 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Trash |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected Attainment Date: | 2029 |
| Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES phase II small MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody. |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.11, listing may be proposed based on the situation-specific weight of evidence. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence consist of data from field visits/trash surveys conducted according to the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) methodology. These data have been compared to evaluation guidelines to assess protection of the non-contact recreation beneficial use and the wildlife habitat beneficial use. Based on the readily available trash assessment data for this waterbody, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination to the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. Data have been evaluated that supports this decision. 2. The Rapid Trash Assessment methodology results showed that this waterbody had level of trash parameter scores in the poor category (indicating impairment of non-contact water recreational beneficial uses) at a single location on three different dates. This waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at four different locations on three different dates. 3. This waterbody is considered impaired by trash because there were exceedances of the evaluation guidelines (poor condition category for the trash assessment metrics) in more than one location or on more than one date. 4. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 5. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy.
6. This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES phase II small MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5482 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Wildlife Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 10 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data results were obtained through application the RTA methodology, developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The RTA documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for level of trash (relating to REC2) and threat to aquatic life (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in March, July, and November 2003, and January and February of 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.
This waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at four different locations on three different dates. |
||||
| Data Reference: | A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams | ||||
| Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of Rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.
The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | If the RTA Parameter 3 (Threat to Aquatic Life) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), then WILD is not supported. This level of trash is a large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter that is detrimental to aquatic life. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter such as: hard or soft plastics, balloons, Styrofoam, cigarette butts; toxic items such as batteries, lighters, or spray cans; large clumps of yard waste or dumped leaf litter; or large amount (>50 pieces) of settleable glass or metal. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | RTA data were collected for this waterbody in four different locations in 2003 and 2004. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March, July, and November in 2003, and January, February 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | For RTA trash assessment data to be considered, the data must have been collected by field operators that have received a 2-hour training in the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 5483 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Trash | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Non-Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 16 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data results were obtained through application the RTA methodology, developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The RTA documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for level of trash (relating to REC2) and threat to aquatic life (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in March, July, and November 2003, and January and February of 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. This waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at four different locations on three different dates. | ||||
| Data Reference: | A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams | ||||
| Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of Rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.
The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | If the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) Parameter 1 (Level of Trash) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), REC2 is not supported. This level of trash distracts the eye on first glance, making the site unsuitable for recreation. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, trash distracts the eye on first glance. Stream, bank surfaces, and immediate riparian zone contain substantial levels of litter and debris (>100 pieces). Evidence of site being used frequently by people: many cans, bottles, and food wrappers, blankets, clothing. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | RTA data were collected for this waterbody in four different locations in 2003 and 2004. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March, July, and November in 2003, and January, February 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | For RTA trash assessment data to be considered, the data must have been collected by field operators that have received a 2-hour training in the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
88814 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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 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 exceed 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: | 30363 | ||||
| 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 2003 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-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 at PET310 on the mainstem of Petaluma River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in April of 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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 |
77931 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | 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 exceed 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: | 30364 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | 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, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in one sediment sample collected in spring 2003 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-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 PET310 on the mainstem of Petaluma River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in April of 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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 |
77034 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | 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 listing under sections 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. Concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc do not exceed the water quality objectives. 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. None of the three samples exceeded the the water quality objectives and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 30366 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Selenium | Silver | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected by SWAMP from a monitoring location PET310 in Petaluma River. Concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver and and zinc did not exceed the water quality objectives.
Concentrations of total dissolved chromium were well below the objective for chromium VI. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| 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.
Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: arsenic- 150 ug/L, chromium VI- 11 ug/L, copper - 9.0 ug/L, lead - 2.5 ug/L, nickel - 52 ug/L, selenium - 5 ug/L, silver-3.4 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from one monitoring location PET310 in the main stem of Petaluma River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on: 01/20/2003, 04/21/2003 and 06/02/2003
. |
||||
| 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 |
77430 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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 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. Four 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. Four of four samples 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 five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 30361 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were collected as part of SWAMP sampling in the summer of 2003 at 7-day intervals and the geometric mean of the samples calculated over a five week interval. The geometric mean for PET265 was 161 MPN/100 mL, for PET400 was 215 MPN/100 mL, for PET310 was 498 MPN/100 mL, and for PET315 was 431 MPN/100 mL, all exceed the 126 MPN/100ml criteria. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and uses of natural hot springs.
Water contact implies a risk of waterborne disease transmission and involves human health; accordingly, criteria required to protect this use are more stringent than those for more casual water-oriented recreation. U.S. EPA water quality criteria for water contact recreation based on the frequency of use a particular area receives - 1986: the E. coli criterion is not to exceed 126 organisms/100 mL. The value is expressed as a 7-day geometric mean based on five or more samples per 30¿day period; designated beach (max) 235 MPN/100 mL. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at four locations: PET265 (Lower Lynch Creek), PET400 ((urban) on Lichau Creek), PET310 and PET315 on the mainstem of Petaluma River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected weekly from 7/21/2003 through 8/18/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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 |
76028 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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 listing under sections 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 is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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. Petaluma River is designated as warm and cold water habitat. Dissolved oxygen measurements at 4 out of 8 continuous deployments were below the Basin Plan objective of 5 mg/L for waters designated as warm water habitat and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Dissolved oxygen measurements at 5 out of 8 continuous deployments were below the Basin Plan objective of 7 mg/L for waters designated as cold water habitat. Although this number of exceedances exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy there is insufficient information to determine that the standards are not met. Four out of 5 exceedances showed very low dissolved oxygen levels but the fifth exceedance measured 6.86 mg/L and was just below the minimum concentration of 7 mg/L. Only two exceedances were detected at the monitoring sites in Petaluma River. The data represent only spring and summer months as six additional deployments from fall and winter did not meet the quality assurance protocol making it difficult to determine whether these dissolved oxygen measurements ascertain that water quality in Petaluma River is impaired. 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: | 28293 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Low Dissolved Oxygen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Petaluma River watershed as part of SWAMP assessment. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at four locations.
In 4 out of 8 deployments, minimum dissolved oxygen levels fell below the objective of 5 mg/L. The 7-day minimum in the main stem monitoring site and the Adobe Creek and Lynch Creek sites in summer 2003 showed extremely low dissolved oxygen concentrations below 1 mg/L and median percent saturation below 20 percent. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| 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 four sites. One monitoring site is located in the main stem of Petaluma River and 3 other sites represent three east site tributaries: Adobe Creek (most downstream tributary), Lynch Creek and Lichau Creek (most upstream tributary). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Dissolved oxygen was measured at 15 minute intervals over 1 to 2 weeks period during spring (April 2003), summer (July 2003), and winter wet season (January/February 2004). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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: | 28269 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Low Dissolved Oxygen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Petaluma River watershed as part of SWAMP assessment. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at four locations.
In 5 out of 8 deployments, minimum dissolved oxygen levels fell below the objective of 7 mg/L. The 7-day minimum in the main stem monitoring site and the Adobe Creek and Lynch Creek sites in summer 2003 showed extremely low dissolved oxygen concentrations below 1 mg/L and median percent saturation below 20 percent. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| 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 four sites. One monitoring site is located in the main stem of Petaluma River and 3 other sites represent three east site tributaries: Adobe Creek (most downstream tributary), Lynch Creek and Lichau Creek (most upstream tributary). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Dissolved oxygen was measured at 15 minute intervals over 1 to 2 weeks period during spring (April 2003), summer (July 2003), and winter wet season (January/February 2004). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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 |
88892 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 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. Temperature measurements exceed the water quality objective in 5 out of 14 deployments. Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for 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 5 out of 14 continuous deployments exceeded the 17C evaluation guideline used to interpret the water quality objective for waters designated as cold water habitat. Although the number of exceedances exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy there is insufficient information to determine that the standards are not met. The exceedances only occurred during dry summer periods (July/September). The range of exceedances was from 17.41 to 19.09C and the maximum 7-day mean temperature exceeded 18C at two occasions only. These highest temperatures were detected in tributaries of Adobe and Lichau Creek that have limited flows during dry summer months and these conditions are known to be difficult to monitor. Only single exceedance was detected in each monitored tributary stream and in the main stem of Petaluma River and the available data reflect the watershed conditions and not the water quality of Petaluma River. 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: | 28266 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Petaluma watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2003 and 2004. 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 four locations.
The measured temperatures ranged from 7.51 oC to 20.71 oC and varied with season and location. The 17 oC criterion for steelhead was exceeded in 5 out of 14 deployments. In 3 instances the estimated maximum 7-day mean temperature ranged from 17.41 to 17.98 °C, and the remaining 2 exceedances had temperatures of 18.36 and 19.09 °C. The highest temperatures were detected at sites draining urban areas in tributaries of Adobe and Lichau Creek |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| 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 shell not be increased by more than 5 oF (2.8 oC) 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 oC was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0 oC 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: | Temperature was measured at four sites. One monitoring site is located in the main stem of Petaluma River and 3 other sites represent three east side tributaries: Adobe Creek (most downstream tributary), Lynch Creek and Lichau Creek (most upstream tributary). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Temperature was recorded at 15 minute intervals over 1 to 2 weeks period during spring (April 2003), summer (July 2003), fall September 2003), and winter wet season (January/February 2004). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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 |
76859 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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 listing under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess toxicity in Petaluma River. Two of three water samples exhibited limited toxicity. Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available 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 concerning current conditions and supporting the listing decision satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Chronic toxicity to Cerodaphnia was observed in one of three samples and growth of Selenastrum was affected in two samples that did not produce adverse effects in Cerodaphnia. The significant toxic effects observed could result from the robustness of the control organisms used in toxicity tests that artificially amplified the difference between the test organisms and the control. Acceptable growth and/or reproduction was observed during the tests. Therefore, the results are insufficient to demonstrate that standards are not attained. 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: | 30362 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sediment Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| 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 2003. No toxicity or adverse effects were exhibited for survival of Hyallela azteca, however there was a minor effect on Hyalella growth (76% of the control) in the bulk toxicity test. | ||||
| 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 PET310 on the mainstem on Petaluma River. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample was collected in Spring 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | The Petaluma River watershed is heavily influenced by historic and current poultry and dairy farming, and has a substantial urban area within the city of Petaluma and adjacent communities. The tidal influences extend many miles up the slough, through highly channelized agricultural areas and tidal marshes. | ||||
| 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: | 30360 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Three samples were collected in 2003 to evaluate water toxicity at one monitoring location in the main stem of Petaluma River upstream from the confluence with Lynch Creek. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum.
Statistically significant chronic effects on Ceriodaphnia reproduction were observed in one sample collected in winter wet season. Mortality and growth in fathead minnow was not affected. Selenastrum growth was significantly reduced (less than 40% of control) in two samples collected in spring and summer. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-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: | Water toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. The U.S.EPA whole effluent toxicity protocol (U.S.EPA 1994) was used to test the effect of water samples on three freshwater test organisms. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether water exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-91/002. Third Edition. July 1994 | ||||
| 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: | Data were collected at one sampling location - PET310 in the main stem of Petaluma River upstream from the confluence with Lynch Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | SWAMP samples were collected during winter wet season (January), spring season (April) and summer dry season (June) of 2003. | ||||
| 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 |
77932 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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 listing under sections 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. pH measurements do not exceed the water quality objective. 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. pH measurements at 13 continuous deployments do not exceed the recommended range between 6.5 and 8.5 and thus 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: | 30359 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 13 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted in the Petaluma River watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2003. 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 eight monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed at two to four locations in spring, summer, fall and winter of 2003-2004 monitoring season. The pH ranged from 6.52 (PET265) to 8.15 (PET130) and varied with season. The pH did not exceed the maximum or drop below the minimum recommended value for any deployment. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA | ||||
| 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 three sites in Adobe Creek, two sites in Lynch Creek, two sites in the main stem of Petaluma River and one site in Lichau Creek in the upper watershed. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals lasting for 1 to 2 weeks in spring (April 2003), summer (July 2003), fall (September 2003) and winter wet season (January-February 2004). | ||||
| 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 |
69547 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon |
| 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: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 1818 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| 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 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | |||||
| Temporal Representation: | |||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70240 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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: | 2020 |
| 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: | 3794 | ||||
| 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 |
69837 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens |
| 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: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 3795 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Pathogens | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| 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 |
68810 |
Region 2 |
Petaluma River |
||
| 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: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | 303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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: | 3796 | ||||
| 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: | 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): | |||||