Final California 2010 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report)

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: Temescal Creek
Water Body ID: CAR2033001020080817192619
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
17566
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
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 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. 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 three samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board 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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17566, Multiple Pollutants
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 28981
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Temescal Creek was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for PCBs, Chlorpyrifos, Dacthal, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH), methyl parathion, thiobencarb.
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: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Diazinon water quality objective, 0.1 ug/L (acute)
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline: PCBs - 0.014 ug/L freshwater continuous Concentration; Chlorpyrifos - 0.015 ug/L (chronic); Dacthal (DCPA) - 14300 ug/L (acute); Disulfoton (Disyston) - 0.05 ug/L (acute); Endosulfan - 0.056 ug/L (chronic)/0.22 ug/L (acute); HCH, gamma-(gamma BHC, Lindane) - 0.95 ug/L (acute); methyl parathion - 0.08 ug/L (acute); Thiobencarb - 3.1 ug/L (acute).
Guideline Reference: National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location (TEM090, above Lake Temescal) on Temescal Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry( June) seasons of 2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
 
DECISION ID
9908
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
Pollutant: Copper | Lead | Nickel | 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: This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

A single line of evidence is available for each pollutant in the administrative record. Concentrations of dissolved zinc, copper, lead and nickel do not exceed water quality standards.

Based on the limited available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Concentrations of dissolved zinc, copper, lead and nickel do not exceed water quality standards and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient information to determine that the standards are not met.
 
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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 9908, Multiple Pollutants
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 21294
 
Pollutant: Copper | Lead | Nickel | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Temescal Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
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: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: copper - 9.0 ug/L; lead - 2.5 ug/L; nickel - 52 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location just upstream from Lake Temescal (west of Hwy 13).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring, dry and wet season of 2004-2005.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
 
DECISION ID
17799
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Regional Board Conclusion: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One out of one samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the 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. One out of one samples exceeded the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board 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.
 
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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17799, Escherichia coli (E. coli)
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 28975
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Samples were collected as part of SWAMP sampling in the summer of 2004 at 7-day intervals at one location and the geometric mean of the samples calculated over a five week interval. The geometric mean in one sample (TEM050) exceeded the 126 MPN/100mL with values of 1116 MPN/100 mL. *Note- MPN is most probable number.
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: Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and uses of natural hot springs.
Water contact implies a risk of waterborne disease transmission and involves human health; accordingly, criteria required to protect this use are more stringent than those for more casual water-oriented recreation.
U.S. EPA water quality criteria for water contact recreation based on the frequency of use a particular area receives - 1986: the E. coli criterion is not to exceed 126 organisms/100 mL. The value is expressed as a 7-day geometric mean based on five or more samples per 30–day period; designated beach (max) 235 MPN/100 mL.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)
  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at TEM050.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected weekly from 7/20/2004 through 8/17/2004.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
 
DECISION ID
17567
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
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: 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 nine samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board 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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17567, Oxygen, Dissolved
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 28898
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 9
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water quality assessment was conducted at Temescal Creek as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two locations. The 7-day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged from 6.1 to 11.0 mg/L and varied with season. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels did not fall below the objective of 5 mg/L.
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 numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 5.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as cold water habitat. The median dissolved oxygen concentration for any three consecutive months shall not be less than 80 percent of the dissolved oxygen content at saturation.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Dissolved oxygen was measured at two sites located on the mainstem of Temescal Creek (TEM060 (Birch Court), and TEM090 (above Lake Temescal)).
Temporal Representation: SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-10 days during spring (May 2004 at both sites), summer dry seasons (July at both sites and August 2004 at one site), and winter wet season (February 2005 at both sites).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
17568
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
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: 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. Four of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Four of nine samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board 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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17568, Temperature, water
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 28861
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 9
Number of Exceedances: 4
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water quality assessment was conducted at the Temescal Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2004-2005. 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 two locations. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 9 times at 2 monitoring locations during wet, spring and dry seasons. The measured temperatures ranged from 11.4°C to 19.3 °C and varied with season and location. During both dry season (Summer and Fall) deployments at both monitoring locations the 7-day mean temperature threshold for steelhead was exceeded. TEM060 exceeded the 7-day mean with temperatures of 18.6 oC in July and September 2004 and TEM090 exceeded with temperatures of 17.3 oC in August and 17.2 oC in September 2004. In total, the 17 oC criterion for steelhead was exceeded in 4 out of 9 deployments.
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: Temperature objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries are specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions to the plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board that such an alteration 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 Region (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Sullivan et al. (2000) reviewed a wide range of studies incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches and developed criteria for assessing temperature risk to aquatic life. The 7-day mean temperature (maximum value of a 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) of 14.8°C was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0°C for steelhead trout. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that temperatures exceeding the above thresholds will cause a 10% reduction in average growth compared to optimal conditions.
Guideline Reference: An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria
 
Spatial Representation: Temperature was measured at two sites (TEM060 Birch Court and TEM090 above Lake Temescal) located on the main stem of Temescal Creek, one above and one below Lake Temescal. The highest temperatures of 19.2 °C and 19.3 °C were recorded at TEM060 in July and September 2004 respectively.
Temporal Representation: In 2004 and 2005 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of temperature at 15 minute intervals for periods of 1 week to 11 days in each of four different seasons: summer (2 sites in July and 1 site in August), spring (2 sites), fall (2 sites) and winter (2 sites).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
 
DECISION ID
16094
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
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: This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess toxicity in Temescal Creek. One of three water samples exhibits limited toxicity.

Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data concerning current conditions and supporting the listing decision satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Water toxicity was observed in one of three samples and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because there is insufficient number of exceedances to confirm toxicity and to determine that the standards are not met.
 
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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 16094, Toxicity
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 21295
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three samples were collected by SWAMP to evaluate water toxicity. Pimephales promelas growth was lower (74.6%) than the control in one sample collected during dry season in June 2005. The result is considered not environmentally significant because mean larvae weight of test organisms was greater than 0.25 mg and the overall growth was higher than 70% of the control.
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: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.

There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Objective/Criterion Reference: Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Water toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. The U.S.EPA whole effluent toxicity protocol (U.S.EPA 1994) was used to test the effect of water samples on three freshwater test organisms. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether water exhibited significant toxicity adversely impacting aquatic organisms.
Guideline Reference: Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 16, No. 6, pp 1322–1329
  Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-91/002. Third Edition. July 1994
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location just upstream from Lake Temescal (west of Hwy 13).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected in wet winter season (January 2005), spring season (April 2005) and dry summer season (June 2005).
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. State Water Resources Control Board. SWAMP. December 2002 (1st version)
 
 
DECISION ID
17569
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
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: 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 lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One 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. One of nine samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board 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.
 
USEPA Action (if applicable):
 
 
Line of Evidence (LOE) for Decision ID 17569, pH
Region 2     
Temescal Creek
 
LOE ID: 28778
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 9
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water quality assessment was conducted at Temescal Creek as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The pH ranged from 7.0 to 9.1 and varied with season. The pH exceeded the maximum, (at 9.1) on one occasion, at the TEM060 sampling location in winter 2005.
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: pH was measured at TEM060 (Birch Court) and TEM090 (above Lake Temescal) monitoring sites.
Temporal Representation: TEM060 was sampled during spring (May 2004), summer dry season (July 2004), fall (September 2004) and winter wet season (January 2005). TEM090 was sampled during spring (May 2004), summer dry seasons (July and August 2004), fall (September 2004) and winter wet season (January 2005). SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-11 days during site visits.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):