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. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Indicator Bacteria |
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. |
|
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150269, Indicator Bacteria
|
Region 2 |
Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
299620 |
|
Pollutant: |
Enterococcus |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
STV |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Reference Site Monitoring data for Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 2 of the 3 samples exceeded the Statistical Threshold Value (STV) water quality threshold for Enterococcus. The STV is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated monthly. |
Data Reference: |
Habitat, 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 bacteria water quality objective to protect the REC-1 beneficial use in ocean waters, applies a Statistical Threshold Value to enterococcus of 110 cfu/100 mL, not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of samples collected within in a calendar month. (Ocean Plan 2019) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 402MAR010-REC (Trailhead at Agate Beach - Receiving Water). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the days of 2015-04-07 and 2016-01-05 . |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150269, Indicator Bacteria
|
Region 2 |
Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
299643 |
|
Pollutant: |
Total Coliform |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
0.1 |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Shellfish Harvesting |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Reference Site Monitoring data for Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Coliform, Total. The water quality threshold is based on a 10% exceedance rate that is calculated for a 30-Day peroid. |
Data Reference: |
Habitat, 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 bacteria water quality objective to protect the shellfish beneficial use in ocean waters applies a threshold of 230 per 100 mL for total coliform, not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of samples. (Ocean Plan 2019) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 402MAR010-REC (Trailhead at Agate Beach - Receiving Water). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the days of 2015-02-05 and 2015-04-07 . |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150269, Indicator Bacteria
|
Region 2 |
Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
299618 |
|
Pollutant: |
Total Coliform |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Median |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Shellfish Harvesting |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Reference Site Monitoring data for Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 3 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Coliform, Total. The water quality threshold for shellfish is based on the median concentration of Total Coliform at each station, and is calculated as a 30-day rolling median. |
Data Reference: |
Habitat, 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: |
In order to protect the shellfish benefical use in ocean waters, the median total coliform concentration shall not exceed 70 per 100 mL. (Ocean Plan 2019) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 402MAR010-REC (Trailhead at Agate Beach - Receiving Water). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the days of 2015-02-05 and 2015-04-07 . |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 150269, Indicator Bacteria
|
Region 2 |
Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) |
|
|
LOE ID: |
299641 |
|
Pollutant: |
Fecal Coliform |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
SSM |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
|
Number of Samples: |
4 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
PATHOGEN MONITORING |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water Board staff assessed ASBS Regional Reference Site Monitoring data for Pacific Ocean at Agate Beach (Marin County) to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of the 4 samples exceeded the water quality threshold for Coliform, Fecal. The water quality threshold is based on a Single Sample Maximum (SSM) value that is calculated daily. |
Data Reference: |
Habitat, 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 bacteria water quality objective to protect the REC-1 beneficial use in ocean waters applies a single sample maximum of fecal coliform, not to exceed 400 per 100 mL. (Ocean Plan 2019) |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
SWRCB. 2005. Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. February 2, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
The samples were collected at 1 monitoring site(s), station(s): 402MAR010-REC (Trailhead at Agate Beach - Receiving Water). |
Temporal Representation: |
The samples were collected between the days of 2015-04-06 and 2016-01-05 . |
Environmental Conditions: |
|
QAPP Information: |
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 2008. Assessing Natural Water Quality In Areas Of Special Biological Significance. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
This is a placeholder reference for data that was collected after QAPP requirements were developed, but exempt from the requirements. |
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
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: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of three samples exceed the PAH evaluation guideline, which is the Ocean Plan's water column objective of 0.0088 ug/L. However, there are limitations in the data that undermine the support for an impairment determination. First, a water column number is being used as a proxy for a shellfish tissue concentration. The concentration in water has been related, using conservative assumptions, to a tissue concentration. However, in the absence of site-specific data to establish what this relationship is at Agate Beach, there is considerable uncertainty in relying on a water concentration to represent a tissue concentration in shellfish. Second, only three (anthracene, pyrene, and phenanthrene) PAH species were ever detected in site water for any sampling date, and none of these three species were detected in water on more than 40% of the sampling dates. Third, there is not a consistent pattern of sufficiently high concentrations of the PAH species. In fact, three of the four phenanthrene detections and two of the three pyrene detections are at or near the upper range of the detection limit; Very few of even the detectable data are substantially higher than the detection limit. Last, for tissue and sediment water quality assessments, PAH species concentrations are weighted by a toxicity equivalency factor that normalizes the PAH species toxicity to that of Benzo(a) pyrene, which has a weight of 1. These weighted concentrations are then summed prior to comparison to an objective or evaluation guideline. In this case, the Ocean Plan simply requires summing the PAH species, irrespective of toxicity differences. The detected PAH species are not among the most toxic PAH chemicals. A specific concentration of benzo(a) pyrene is 100 times more toxic than anthracene and 1000 times more toxic than the same concentration of phenanthrene and pyrene.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is not sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the CWA section 303(d) List. Consideration to place a waterbody segment on the 303(d) list or to determine that the beneficial use is fully supported requires further data and information to increase the confidence in the accuracy of the threshold and the representativeness of the submitted data. Assessment of the shellfish harvesting beneficial use logically should make use of PAH concentration data in shellfish tissue. |
|
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
|
State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: |
|
|
State Board Decision Recommendation: |
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Selenium |
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. |
|
|
Pollutant: |
Silver |
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. |
|
|
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 this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|