| Water Body Name: | De Luz Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9022100020010924135442 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
69676 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3029 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For all waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for Arsenic is 0.05 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. QA=? | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77623 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 and 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutant(s) is necessary to assess listing status.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence provides sufficient justification for not 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 does satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water does not exhibit significant degradation in biological populations and/or communities as compared to reference site(s) using the California Stream Condition Index. 4. Pursuant to section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, the water segment does have associated pollutant(s) samples that exceed water quality objectives. 5. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not being met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 21183 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All four samples collected at De Luz Creek show excessive nitrogen concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007.
Samples were collected in January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, and September 2003. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek station 3,(902SMDLZ3). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, and September 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73499 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the six samples collected had IBI scores below 40. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Bioassessment Data for Various Pollutants from Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Regional Monitoring of Southern California Coastal Watersheds, 2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-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 or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration or other appropriate methods as specified by the State or Regional Board. Region 9 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The IBI is a multi-metric assessment that employs biological metrics that respond to a habitat or water quality impairment. Each of the biological metrics measured at a site are converted to an IBI score then summed. These cumulative scores are then ranked. For the Southern California IBI, sites with scores below 40 are considered to have impaired conditions. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Wadeable Streams in Northern Coastal California and its Application to Regional 305(b) Assessment | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at station REF-DLC De Luz Creek. R9 says this is the same sites as REF-DLC3. WBs should be combined. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected in May and October 2001 to 2004. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the Southern California Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Bioassessment Quality Assurance Project Plan, June 25, 2009. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | e-mail clarifying QAPP information | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for Various Pollutants from the County of San Diego Copermittees Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program, 2001-2008. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 79476 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | The CSCI scores for all sites on De Luz Creek are above the 0.79 threshold, and therefore not exceeding the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants from the County of San Diego Copermittees Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program, 2001-2008. | ||||
| Bioassessment Data for Various Pollutants from Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Regional Monitoring of Southern California Coastal Watersheds, 2009. | |||||
| Region 9 CSCI Scores & Water Body Information | |||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-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 or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. Region 9 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| 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: | The samples were collected at station REF-DLC3 (902REF-DLC3), 902REF-DLC | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected from 2001 to 2004 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The data was collected under the the County of San Diego NPDES MS4 Copermittees Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | e-mail clarifying QAPP information | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Data for Various Pollutants from the County of San Diego Copermittees Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program, 2001-2008. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26381 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples of IBI data were taken from November 2000 to October 2003 at one sampling site. None of the samples exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish and Game IBI Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one site: 902DLCDLM on De Luz Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during four events from November 2000 to October 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". | ||||
DECISION ID |
69907 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Boron |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3028 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for Boron is 0.75 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81504 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the criteria. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of the four samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73500 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for cadmium is 0.005 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73501 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Cadmium. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
77621 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chloride |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 11 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 11 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 cycle. 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: | 3027 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 11 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for chloride is 250 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/01/2000. Samples were collected once per day on sampling days, but twice on 03/07/2000 and 06/01/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81505 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the 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 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 the three samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78015 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA drinking water health advisory for chlorpyrifos is 2.1 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73502 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 0 samples exceed the criterion for Chlorpyrifos. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater criterion continuous concentration to protect aquatic organisms is 0.015 ug/L (Siepmann and Finlayson 2000). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game (with minor corrections to significant figures as described in Beaulaurier et al., 2005). | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69862 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the 12 samples exceed the 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 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 the 12 samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3026 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 8 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for copper is 1.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73465 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Secondary MCL for copper is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73466 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69045 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Cyanide |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 5 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3025 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Cyanide | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 5 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For all waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for Cyanide is 0.2 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected once each in 12/1997, 05/1998, 11/1998, 05/1999 and 03/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81701 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the 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 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 the three samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78016 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA drinking water health advisory for diazinon is 1.4 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73467 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Diazinon | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Diazinon. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The freshwater chronic value for diazinon is 0.1 ug/L, expressed as a continuous concentration (Finlayson, 2004). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water quality for diazinon. Memorandum to J. Karkoski, Central Valley RWQCB. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigation Unit, CA Department of Fish and Game | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69044 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3024 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fluoride | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. One of 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for Fluoride is 1.0 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallrbook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
100526 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| 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: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the Five samples exceed the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Enterococcus, Three of the Five samples exceeded the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Fecal Coliform, and Two out of Five samples exceeded the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Total Coliform. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Four of the Five samples exceed the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Enterococcus, Three of the Five samples exceeded the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Fecal Coliform, and Two out of Five samples exceeded the Single Sample Maximum Objective for Total Coliform and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73474 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 2 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxicsubstances in concentrations which are toxic to,or which produce detrimental physiologicalresponses in human, plant, animal, or indigenousaquatic life (Basin Plan). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I), the total coliform concentration shall not exceed 10000 MPN/100 ml (CDPH 2006). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/13/2003-5/9/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73469 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 3 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Coliform, Fecal. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | In waters designated for water contact recreation (REC I), the fecal coliform concentration shall not exceed 400 MPN/100 ml. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/13/2003-5/9/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73468 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Enterococcus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 4 of 5 samples exceed the criterion for Enterococci. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Samples shall not exceed 61 organisms per 100 ml for enterococcus in waters designated for REC I beneficial use (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/13/2003-5/9/2007. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
81753 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the four samples exceed the 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 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 the four samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73471 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for Lead is 0.015 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73470 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Lead. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
81754 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Malathion |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the three samples exceed the 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 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 the three samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73472 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| 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: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA national ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life instantaneous maximum for malathion is 0.1 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 78017 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Malathion | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 3 samples exceed the criterion for Malathion. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA drinking water health advisory for malathion is 100 µg/L. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected over the time period 5/10/2006-5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
70467 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Mercury |
| 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: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 5 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3021 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 5 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For all waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for Mercury is 0.002 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 1-2 times per year from 12/1997 to 03/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
85996 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One 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 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 exceeded the Water Quality Objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73473 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, Nitrite | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| 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 County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Nitrite as N. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The California Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrite (as N) is 1.0 mg/L (Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Maximum Contaminant Levels for organic and inorganic chemicals. CCR Title 22 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
85997 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the One samples exceed the Evaluation Guideline. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Zero of One samples exceeded the Evaluation Guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to Section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73498 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| 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 County of San Diego data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceed the criterion for Ammonia As N, Total. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Basin Plan: No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | 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: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected on a single day 5/13/2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69866 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Oil and Grease |
| 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: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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, one line(s) of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This conclusion is based on the fact that the data shows 1 out of 11 samples had "detectable levels" of oil and grease. There is no numeric water quality objective to compare the data to, to determine if water quality objectives are being met or exceeded. 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. This conclusion is based on the fact that the data shows 1 out of 11 samples had "detectable levels" of oil and grease and this information is insufficient to determine with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy. There is no numeric water quality objective to compare the data to, to determine if water quality objectives are being met or exceeded. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2 when there is a numeric water quality objective. 4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3019 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oil and Grease | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 11 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. Ten of 11 samples were measured as non-detects, but one of the 11 samples measured 1.33 mg/L. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations which result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water, or which cause nuisance or which otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69673 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the 7 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3017 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the LAW Crandall from 1997 to 1999. One of the 7 samples was in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters-streams and other flowing waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for Total Phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L. This appears to be the desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters; not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at DeLuz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 1-4 times per year from 12/1997 to 05/1999. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
76920 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Surfactants (MBAS) |
| 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: | Region 8 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3015 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Surfactants (MBAS) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for MBAS is 0.5 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69861 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| 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: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the 9 samples exceed the Basin Plan criteria, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency of the Listing Policy. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3014 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. Two of 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters in the Deluz Creek HA, and all beneficial uses, the WQO for TDS is 750 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | These objectives apply to the lower portion of Murrieta Creek in the Wolf HSA (2.52) and the Santa Margarita River from its beginning at the confluence of Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, through the Gavilan HSA (2.22) and DeLuz HSA (2.21), to where it enters the Upper Ysidora HSA (2.13). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69864 |
Region 9 |
De Luz 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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. Zero of the Nine samples exceed the 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 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 the Nine samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73475 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | No individual chemical or combination of chemicals shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Secondary MCL for zinc is 5.0 mg/L (Title 22 California Code of Regulations). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels and Compliance. CCR Title 22 section 64449. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3013 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of the 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for zinc is 5.0 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 73476 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed County of San Diego DWM data for De Luz Creek to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 4 samples exceed the criterion for Zinc. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Metals, Nutrients, Inorganics, Organics, Pathogens, and Pesticides from the County of San Diego, 2003-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in freshwater. The criterion in freshwater is hardness dependent for each sample and varies based on the ambient hardness during sampling. Section (b)(1) in CTR contains the hardness dependent formula for the metals criterion. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Code of Federal Regulations 40 part 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California. 7/1/2011 Edition | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Data for this line of evidence for De Luz Creek was collected at 1 monitoring site [ De Luz Creek @ De Luz Road (Mile Marker 8 @ private driveway)] | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Data was collected from 5/13/2003 - 5/27/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Staff is not aware of any special conditions that might affect interpretation of the data. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | The Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8 was followed. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan from the Truesdail Laboratories, Rev. 12, Enviromatrix Analytical and Dry Weather Monitoring Program Rev. 8. | ||||
DECISION ID |
69731 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of the ten samples exceed the 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 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 the ten samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 3018 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 10 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. None of 10 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for pH is 6.5(minimum) to 8.5 (maximum). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. One sample was collected on most days. Two samples were collected on 03/07/200 and 06/01/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
79335 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Iron |
| 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: | Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Five of 9 samples exceeded the Basin Plan criteria, and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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 cycle. 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: | 3023 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Iron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. Five of 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for iron is 0.3 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
70351 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Manganese |
| 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: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of 9 samples exceeded the Basin Plan criteria, and these exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| 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 cycle. 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: | 3022 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Manganese | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. Two of 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The water quality objective for manganese in De Luz Creek is 0.05 milligrams/liter (mg/l) according to Basin Plan, Table 3-2 entitled, Water Quality Objectives. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69042 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| 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: | 2025 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Four of the Five samples exceed the objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. Four of the Five samples exceed the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | 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 cycle. 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: | 21183 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Nitrogen as N | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All four samples collected at De Luz Creek show excessive nitrogen concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007.
Samples were collected in January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, and September 2003. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek station 3,(902SMDLZ3). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, and September 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3020 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall in 1997-1999. Four samples were collected, but only 2 samples were collected on the same day as phosphorus samples, so that the N:P ratio could be used. One of the 2 ratios was in exceedance of a 10:1 ratio for N:P. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuaries, coastal lagoons, and ground waters, and all beneficial uses, analagous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected once each in 12/1997, 05/1998, 11/1998, and 05/1999. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69535 |
Region 9 |
De Luz Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates |
| 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: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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. Six of the 13 samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Six of the 13 samples exceed the secondary MCL drinking water standard and this exceeds 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 cycle. 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: | 21185 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All four samples collected show excessive sulfate concentrations according to results in California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The recommended secondary drinking water standard for sulfate is 250 mg/l (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek station 3,(902SMDLZ3). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in January 2003, April 2003, May 2003, and September 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3016 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Sulfates | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by LAW Crandall from 1997 to 2000. Two of 9 samples were in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial use, the WQO for Sulfate is 250 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at De Luz Creek near Fallbrook. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on a quarterly basis from 12/1997 to 06/2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||