| Water Body Name: | Tennessee Valley Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR2013001420080626103904 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
151718 |
Region 2 |
Tennessee Valley Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | 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. One line(s) of evidence evaluating benthic-macroinvertebrate bioassessment data is/are available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. One of one benthic-macroinvertebrate samples exceed the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) impairment threshold. However, a minimum of two benthic-macroinvertebrate samples 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. One of one 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: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 306989 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm 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 201TVY030 to determine beneficial use support and the results are as follows: 1 of 1 samples exceeded the threshold. CSCI scores were from 0.642053 to 0.642053. | ||||
| 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 201TVY030. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 4/15/2005 to 4/15/2005. | ||||
| 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. | ||||
DECISION ID |
77058 |
Region 2 |
Tennessee Valley Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives (Basin Plan) and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. A minimum of five samples is needed. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 28231 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Water quality assessment was conducted at the Tennessee Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2005-2006. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at between three and seven sites. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 3 times at one monitoring site during wet, spring and dry season of 2005-2006. pH ranged from 6.9 to 8.1 and did not exceed the recommended range. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. This encompasses the pH range usually found in waters within the basin. Controllable water quality factors shall not cause changes greater than 0.5 units in normal ambient pH levels. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Monitoring was conducted at TVY030 site. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | In 2005-2006 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15-minute intervals lasting approximately one week during spring (April 2005), summer (August 2005) and winter wet season (January 2006). | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | The QA/QC procedure was comparable with SWAMP'S Quality Assurance Management Plan of 2002. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||