Water Body Name: | Crow Creek (Alameda) |
Water Body ID: | CAR2042002020210325055340 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
143680 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 276741 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276742 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276864 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276740 | ||||
Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Alkalinity as CaCO3. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended alkalinity criterion continuous concentration (CCC) for the protection of aquatic life in freshwater is a minimum value of 20,000 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
150920 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Ammonia |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 280265 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279148 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279366 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277801 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279017 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279015 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277818 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277622 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277678 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 278139 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277787 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 277606 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279302 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 280023 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 278093 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Total Ammonia criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 30-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is Temperature and pH dependent, and was calculated according to the formula listed in the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 document. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia - Freshwater 2013 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 279108 | ||||
Pollutant: | Ammonia (Unionized) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Ammonia as N, Unionized. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.20 Un-Ionized Ammonia: The discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving waters to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess 0.025 mg/l (as N), expressed as an annual median. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
143651 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269674 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for anthracene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 845 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269633 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for anthracene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 845 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143652 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269669 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for arsenic is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 33 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269799 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Arsenic . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for arsenic is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 33 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
151806 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects are being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, additional lines of evidence (LOEs) associating the Benthic Community Effects decision with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants other than benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment or habitat assessment LOEs are necessary to place a water body on the 303(d) List for Benthic Community Effects. Three line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. Three of three benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples and an additional indicator pollutant are needed to assess listing status. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this waterbody segment on the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Three of three benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment samples had CSCI scores below 0.79. The available information is insufficient to determine whether the waterbody/pollutant combination should be placed on the 303(d) List of impaired waters at this time. 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: | 306871 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 204PS0358 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.62323253 to 0.62323253. | ||||
Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, 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: | Samples were collected from station 204PS0358. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 5/23/2016 to 5/23/2016. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected using Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program protocols | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 306872 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 204R01375 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.789647174 to 0.789647174. | ||||
Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, 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: | Samples were collected from station 204R01375. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 6/7/2017 to 6/7/2017. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected according to BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition sampling protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 306861 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed data for 204R00927 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.54178 to 0.54178. | ||||
Data Reference: | California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) Scores for the 2024 Integrated Report for Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce significant alterations in population or community ecology or receiving water biota. In addition, the health and life history characteristics of aquatic organisms in waters affected by controllable water quality factors shall not differ significantly from those for the same waters in areas unaffected by controllable water quality factors. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rehn, 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: | Samples were collected from station 204R00927. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 5/13/2014 to 5/13/2014. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Data were collected according to BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition sampling protocols. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143654 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269885 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benz(a)anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for benz[a]anthrazene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1050 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 269985 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)anthracene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benz(a)anthracene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for benz[a]anthrazene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1050 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143653 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270151 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benzo(a)pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for benzo[a]pyrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270424 | ||||
Pollutant: | Benzo(a)pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Benzo(a)pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for benzo[a]pyrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1450 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143678 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270141 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin (Amweg et al., 2005 and Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270242 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Bifenthrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.43 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.43 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for bifenthrin (Amweg et al., 2005 and Amweg and Weston, 2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143655 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270690 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cadmium is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 4.98 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270692 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cadmium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cadmium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cadmium is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 4.98 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143656 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlordane |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270925 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlordane is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 17.6 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270963 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlordane | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chlordane . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chlordane is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 17.6 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143657 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Chloride |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 281869 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281558 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281217 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281017 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281287 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 281764 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chloride | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chloride. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The chloride criterion continuous concentration (expressed as a 4-day average) to protect aquatic life in freshwater is 230000 ug/L (230 mg/L)(USEPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143658 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorine |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 282350 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 282471 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 282291 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 282799 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 282516 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 2 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 282314 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chlorine | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Chlorine, Total Residual. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The USEPA recommended chlorine criterion for the protection of aquatic ife in freshwater is 11 ug/L (4-day average). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Current as of 08/03/2016. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143684 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Chromium |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 270980 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chromium is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 111 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271326 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chromium | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chromium . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chromium is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 111 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143659 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271378 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chrysene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1290 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271270 | ||||
Pollutant: | Chrysene (C1-C4) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Chrysene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for chrysene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1290 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143660 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Copper |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271621 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for copper is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 149 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271464 | ||||
Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Copper . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for copper is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 149 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143681 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272020 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271938 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyfluthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyfluthrin, total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cyfluthrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.1 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.1 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cyfluthrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143683 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272009 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 271896 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cyhalothrin, Lambda | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cyhalothrin, Total lambda- . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lambda-cyhalothrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.44 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.44 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for lambda-cyhalothrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143679 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272249 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al., (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272130 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Cypermethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.3 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.3 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al., (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
145721 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 272159 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDD is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 28 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272157 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDD is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 28 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
148171 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 272163 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDE is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 31.3 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272144 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDE is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 31.3 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
148254 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272427 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDT is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 62.9 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276201 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for total DDTs is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 572 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276381 | ||||
Pollutant: | Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Total DDT (sum of 4,4'- and 2,4'- isomers of DDT, DDE, and DDD) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for total DDTs is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 572 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272466 | ||||
Pollutant: | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the sum of DDT is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 62.9 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143682 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272634 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272637 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Deltamethrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 0.79 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 0.79 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for deltamethrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143661 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272978 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dieldrin is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 61.8 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272345 | ||||
Pollutant: | Dieldrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Dieldrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for dieldrin is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 61.8 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143662 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Endrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for endrin is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 207 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 272839 | ||||
Pollutant: | Endrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Endrin . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for endrin is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 207 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143685 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273036 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273278 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 1.5 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 1.5 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143663 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273462 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fluoranthene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273401 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluoranthene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluoranthene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fluoranthene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 2230 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143664 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Fluorene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273327 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluorene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fluorene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) for Fluorene is 536 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273302 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fluorene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Fluorene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fluorene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) for Fluorene is 536 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143665 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Lead |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274082 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lead is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 128 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274173 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lead | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Lead . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lead is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 128 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143666 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273919 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
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 BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma-. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lindane is the probable effect concentration (PEC) for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 273853 | ||||
Pollutant: | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm 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 BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support, and the results are as follows: 0 of the 0 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for HCH, gamma-. Although a total of 1 samples were collected, 1 of these samples were not included in the assessment because the laboratory data reporting limit(s) was above the objective and therefore the results could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the Listing Policy Section 6.1.5.5. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for lindane is the probable effect concentration (PEC) for Lindane is 4.99 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Date for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
145433 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Mercury |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 274251 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for mercury is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1.06 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274518 | ||||
Pollutant: | Mercury | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Mercury . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for mercury is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1.06 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143667 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274756 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naphthalene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for naphthalene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 561 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274600 | ||||
Pollutant: | Naphthalene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Naphthalene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for naphthalene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 561 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143668 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274781 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for nickel is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 48.6 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 274750 | ||||
Pollutant: | Nickel | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Nickel . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for nickel is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 48.6 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143669 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 285678 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as warm water habitat shall be of a 5.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285656 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat shall be of a 7.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285207 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as warm water habitat shall be of a 5.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285503 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat shall be of a 7.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285501 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat shall be of a 7.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285502 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat shall be of a 7.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285208 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as warm water habitat shall be of a 5.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 285763 | ||||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Oxygen, Dissolved. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen objectives for waters designated as warm water habitat shall be of a 5.0 mg/l minimum. (Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives.) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
148811 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275148 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for total PAHs is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 22800 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275152 | ||||
Pollutant: | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for total PAHs is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 22800 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143686 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275513 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275363 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Permethrin, Total . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin is the median lethal concentration (LC50) of 8.9 ug/g and is normalized by the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment sample. The LC50 8.9 ug/g is the geometric mean of LC50 values for permethrin (Amweg et al., 2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143671 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275249 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phenanthrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1170 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al.). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275326 | ||||
Pollutant: | Phenanthrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Phenanthrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for phenanthrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1170 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al.). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143672 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrene |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275698 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for pyrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275670 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrene . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for pyrene is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 1520 ug/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143677 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275782 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit. Individual pyrethroid concentrations in sediment were normalized to organic carbon content, divided by the respective LC50 and then summed. A sum over over one toxic unit is an exceedance of the evaluation guideline (Amweg et al. 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of freshwater OC-normalized sediment toxicity data for pyrethroids | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 275880 | ||||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Pyrethroids . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for the protection of aquatic life from pyrethroids is one toxic unit. Individual pyrethroid concentrations in sediment were normalized to organic carbon content, divided by the respective LC50 and then summed. A sum over over one toxic unit is an exceedance of the evaluation guideline (Amweg et al. 2006). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Compilation of freshwater OC-normalized sediment toxicity data for pyrethroids | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143673 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 298622 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
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 BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5 degrees F (2.8 degrees C) above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Scientific literature reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA indicates that stream temperatures higher than 21C are associated with avoidance behavior and migration blockages in steelhead trout. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA | ||||
Guideline Reference: | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Issue Paper 1: Salmonid Behavior and Water Temperature Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA-910-D-01-001 May 2001. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2002. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards: Temperature Criteria. Draft Discussion Paper and Literature Summary. Publication Number 00-10-070. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Contribution No. 57. Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986, pp. 191-231. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 298748 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5 degrees F (2.8 degrees C) above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Scientific literature reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA indicates that stream temperatures higher than 21C are associated with avoidance behavior and migration blockages in steelhead trout. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA | ||||
Guideline Reference: | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Issue Paper 1: Salmonid Behavior and Water Temperature Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA-910-D-01-001 May 2001. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2002. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards: Temperature Criteria. Draft Discussion Paper and Literature Summary. Publication Number 00-10-070. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Contribution No. 57. Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986, pp. 191-231. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 288888 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: “- The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. - The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.” | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids (Carter 2008, Moyle 1976, and USEPA 1977), the lethal temperature evaluation guideline for both the steelhead adult migration and holding and the steelhead juvenile growth and rearing life stages is 24°C. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-061 (NTIS PB270032). Prepared by W.A. Brungs and B.R. Jones. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 289057 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: “- The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. - The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.” | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids (Carter 2008, Moyle 1976, and USEPA 1977), the lethal temperature evaluation guideline for both the steelhead adult migration and holding and the steelhead juvenile growth and rearing life stages is 24°C. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-061 (NTIS PB270032). Prepared by W.A. Brungs and B.R. Jones. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 289176 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: “- The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. - The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.” | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids (Carter 2008, Moyle 1976, and USEPA 1977), the lethal temperature evaluation guideline for both the steelhead adult migration and holding and the steelhead juvenile growth and rearing life stages is 24°C. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-061 (NTIS PB270032). Prepared by W.A. Brungs and B.R. Jones. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 289111 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: “- The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. - The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.” | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Per Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids (Carter 2008, Moyle 1976, and USEPA 1977), the lethal temperature evaluation guideline for both the steelhead adult migration and holding and the steelhead juvenile growth and rearing life stages is 24°C. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Temperature criteria for freshwater fish: protocol and procedures. Ecological Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-061 (NTIS PB270032). Prepared by W.A. Brungs and B.R. Jones. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen/Total Dissolved Gas, Ammonia, and pH on Salmonids. Implications for California's North Coast TMDLs. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 298687 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
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 BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5 degrees F (2.8 degrees C) above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Scientific literature reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA indicates that stream temperatures higher than 21C are associated with avoidance behavior and migration blockages in steelhead trout. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA | ||||
Guideline Reference: | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Issue Paper 1: Salmonid Behavior and Water Temperature Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA-910-D-01-001 May 2001. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2002. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards: Temperature Criteria. Draft Discussion Paper and Literature Summary. Publication Number 00-10-070. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Contribution No. 57. Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986, pp. 191-231. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 298661 | ||||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Fish Migration | ||||
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 BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Temperature. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Temperature objectives for surface waters are specified in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Plan. The following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of inland surface waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5 degrees F (2.8 degrees C) above natural receiving water temperature. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Scientific literature reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. EPA indicates that stream temperatures higher than 21C are associated with avoidance behavior and migration blockages in steelhead trout. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality Standards. EPA 910-B-03-002. Region 10 Office of Water, Seattle, WA | ||||
Guideline Reference: | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Issue Paper 1: Salmonid Behavior and Water Temperature Prepared as Part of EPA Region 10 Temperature Water Quality Criteria Guidance Development Project. Region 10, Seattle, WA. EPA-910-D-01-001 May 2001. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). 2002. Evaluating Standards for Protecting Aquatic Life in Washington’s Surface Water Quality Standards: Temperature Criteria. Draft Discussion Paper and Literature Summary. Publication Number 00-10-070. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Beschta RL, Bilby RE, Brown GW, Holtby LB, Hofstra TD. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions. In: Salo EO, Cundy TW, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. Contribution No. 57. Proceedings of a Symposium held at University of Washington, February 12-14, 1986, pp. 191-231. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143674 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Toxicity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268607 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 2 samples collected by BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 for Crow Creek (Alameda) exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day and the same location. The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia for Survival, Selenastrum capricornutum for Total Cell Count, Ceriodaphnia dubia for Young/female, Hyalella azteca for Survival, Pimephales promelas for Survival, Pimephales promelas for Biomass (wt/orig indiv). | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. Detrimental responses include, but are not limited to, decreased growth rate and decreased reproductive success of resident or indicator species. There shall be no acute toxicity in ambient waters. Acute toxicity is defined as a median of less than 90 percent survival, or less than 70 percent survival, 10 percent of the time, of test organisms in a 96-hour static or continuous flow test. There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. Attainment of this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, or toxicity tests (including those described in Chapter 4), or other methods selected by the Water Board. The Water Board will also consider other relevant information and numeric criteria and guidelines for toxic substances developed by other agencies as appropriate. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The sample is toxic when the response of the organisms exposed to the sample is significantly different (worse) than the response of the organisms exposed to the laboratory control based on statistical hypothesis testing. An exceedance is counted when the significant effect code is “Significant; Less Similarity,” which means that the sample result is significantly different than the control result, and the percent effect is greater than the evaluation threshold. The default evaluation threshold is 20% unless otherwise stated. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at monitoring site: 204R00927 ( Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd ). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-03-29 and 2014-07-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268584 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 1 samples collected by BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 for Crow Creek (Alameda) exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day and the same location. The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca for Survival. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. Detrimental responses include, but are not limited to, decreased growth rate and decreased reproductive success of resident or indicator species. There shall be no acute toxicity in ambient waters. Acute toxicity is defined as a median of less than 90 percent survival, or less than 70 percent survival, 10 percent of the time, of test organisms in a 96-hour static or continuous flow test. There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. Attainment of this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, or toxicity tests (including those described in Chapter 4), or other methods selected by the Water Board. The Water Board will also consider other relevant information and numeric criteria and guidelines for toxic substances developed by other agencies as appropriate. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The sample is toxic when the response of the organisms exposed to the sample is significantly different (worse) than the response of the organisms exposed to the laboratory control based on statistical hypothesis testing. An exceedance is counted when the significant effect code is “Significant; Less Similarity,” which means that the sample result is significantly different than the control result, and the percent effect is greater than the evaluation threshold. The default evaluation threshold is 20% unless otherwise stated. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at monitoring site: 204R00927 ( Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd ). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-07-23 and 2014-07-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268616 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 2 samples collected by BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 for Crow Creek (Alameda) exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day and the same location. The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Ceriodaphnia dubia for Survival, Selenastrum capricornutum for Total Cell Count, Ceriodaphnia dubia for Young/female, Hyalella azteca for Survival, Pimephales promelas for Survival, Pimephales promelas for Biomass (wt/orig indiv). | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. Detrimental responses include, but are not limited to, decreased growth rate and decreased reproductive success of resident or indicator species. There shall be no acute toxicity in ambient waters. Acute toxicity is defined as a median of less than 90 percent survival, or less than 70 percent survival, 10 percent of the time, of test organisms in a 96-hour static or continuous flow test. There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. Attainment of this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, or toxicity tests (including those described in Chapter 4), or other methods selected by the Water Board. The Water Board will also consider other relevant information and numeric criteria and guidelines for toxic substances developed by other agencies as appropriate. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The sample is toxic when the response of the organisms exposed to the sample is significantly different (worse) than the response of the organisms exposed to the laboratory control based on statistical hypothesis testing. An exceedance is counted when the significant effect code is “Significant; Less Similarity,” which means that the sample result is significantly different than the control result, and the percent effect is greater than the evaluation threshold. The default evaluation threshold is 20% unless otherwise stated. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at monitoring site: 204R00927 ( Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd ). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-03-29 and 2014-07-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 268592 | ||||
Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | TOXICITY TESTING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 0 of the 1 samples collected by BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 for Crow Creek (Alameda) exhibited toxicity. A sample may have multiple toxicity test results, but will only be counted once. A sample is defined as being collected on the same day and the same location. The following organisms and parameters were utilized for the toxicity tests: Hyalella azteca for Growth (wt/surv indiv), Hyalella azteca for Survival. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. Detrimental responses include, but are not limited to, decreased growth rate and decreased reproductive success of resident or indicator species. There shall be no acute toxicity in ambient waters. Acute toxicity is defined as a median of less than 90 percent survival, or less than 70 percent survival, 10 percent of the time, of test organisms in a 96-hour static or continuous flow test. There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community. Attainment of this objective will be determined by analyses of indicator organisms, species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, or toxicity tests (including those described in Chapter 4), or other methods selected by the Water Board. The Water Board will also consider other relevant information and numeric criteria and guidelines for toxic substances developed by other agencies as appropriate. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The sample is toxic when the response of the organisms exposed to the sample is significantly different (worse) than the response of the organisms exposed to the laboratory control based on statistical hypothesis testing. An exceedance is counted when the significant effect code is “Significant; Less Similarity,” which means that the sample result is significantly different than the control result, and the percent effect is greater than the evaluation threshold. The default evaluation threshold is 20% unless otherwise stated. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Fourth Edition. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. EPA-821-R-02-013 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at monitoring site: 204R00927 ( Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd ). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-07-23 and 2014-07-23. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143675 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Turbidity |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 289605 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Sigler et al. (1984) states that turbidities of 25 NTUs or greater caused reduction in juvenile salmonid growth due to interference with their ability to find food. The application of this evaluation guideline was restricted to the dry season (May to October) because Coho and steelhead early life stages are present during the dry season and feeding becomes infrequent during the winter months (Moyle 2002). Additionally, runoff and resuspension of fine substrate during storm events may naturally elevate turbidity compared to baseflow conditions. The magnitude and duration of these increases will vary depending on the watershed’s geology and land use and may not represent a chronic turbidity problem. Turbidity is naturally higher in tidal river systems, so sample locations with salinity regimes (i.e., Freshwater or Marine) designated as “Marine” were excluded from this analysis. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steelheads and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Inland Fishes of California | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 302700 | ||||
Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Turbidity. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin: Controllable water quality factors shall not cause a detrimental increase in concentrations of toxic substances found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Effects on aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health will be considered. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Turbidities of 40 NTU or greater can cause a reduced foraging efficiency and a shift in prey selection in piscivorous fish (largemouth bass) due to interference with their ability to find prey (Shoup, D.E. and Wahl D.H., 2009). The application of this evaluation guideline was restricted to the dry season (May to October) because runoff and resuspension of fine substrate during storm events may naturally elevate turbidity compared to baseflow conditions. The magnitude and duration of these increases will vary depending on the watershed’s geology and land use and may not represent a chronic turbidity problem. Turbidity is naturally higher in tidal river systems, so sample locations with salinity regimes (i.e., Freshwater or Marine) designated as “Marine” were excluded from this analysis. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | The Effects of Turbidity on Prey Selection by Piscivorous Largemouth Bass | ||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||
DECISION ID |
143676 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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 the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276412 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for zinc is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 276504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 0 of the 1 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline for Zinc . | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Section 3.3.18 of the San Francisco Bay Region's Basin Plan contains the narrative toxicity objective stating that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for zinc is the probable effect concentration (PEC) of 459 mg/kg dry weight (MacDonald et al., 2000a). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Data were collected from 1 station(s). Station Code(s): 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Data for this waterbody were collected over the date range 2014-07-23 to 2014-07-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
143670 |
Region 2 |
Crow Creek (Alameda) |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | New Decision |
Revision Status | Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | Insufficient information is available to determine beneficial use support for this waterbody-pollutant combination with the statistical power and confidence required by the Listing Policy. Beneficial use support will be reassessed in a future cycle, if more data are available. |
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: | 287192 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2019 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.9 pH states: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R04675 (Crow Creek upstream of Cold Water Drive). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2019-06-06 and 2019-06-06 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 287105 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2014 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.9 pH states: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R00927 (Crow Creek 100m north of E Castro Valley Blvd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2014-05-13 and 2014-05-13 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc.. 2014. Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Creek Status Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 287393 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed BASMAA RMC Monitoring in WY2017 data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 0 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, Toxicity, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.9 pH states: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204R01375 (Crow Creek 1500 m north of Norris Canyon Rd). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2017-06-07 and 2017-06-07 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting . 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 287125 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water Board staff assessed SWAMP Perennial Stream Surveys data for Crow Creek (Alameda) to determine beneficial use support and results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for pH. | ||||
Data Reference: | Field, Habitat, WQ data from the California Environmental Data Exchange Network assembled for the 2024 Integrated Report in Region 2. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin, Chapter III Water Quality Objectives, Section 3.3.9 pH states: The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site: 204PS0358 (Crow Creek ~0.3mi above San Lorenzo Cr.). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The samples were collected between the dates of 2016-05-23 and 2016-05-23 | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | SWRCB. 2018. This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements.. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. | ||||