| |
DECISION ID |
5358 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sediment Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Sources: |
Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.6 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the samples exceed the water quality objective for toxicity.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the 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. Two of four samples exceeded the toxicity water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
21398 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples were collected at English Canyon Creek station 901SJENG2 from October 2002 to May 2003. They showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the following tests: Selenastrum algae growth test - two of the four samples. Ceriodaphnia dubia survival/reproductive test - three of the four samples. |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan, all waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
According to SWAMP, waters are considered toxic when samples show significant toxicity levels (SWAMP code SL) when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5% and percent control values less than the evaluation threshold. |
| 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 |
| |
Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport. Order No. R9-2007-0001. |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water toxicity samples were collected at English Canyon Creek 2, station 901SJENG2; (Latitude 33.6278, Longitude -117.6806). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Water samples were collected on October 2002, January 2003, April 2003 and May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
2999 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sediment Toxicity |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
| Matrix: |
Sediment |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Two out of four samples displayed statistically significant toxicity in the survival endpoint when compared to the negative control based on a statistical test with alpha of less than 5%. All samples were tested using the 10-day Hyallela azteca test. All data points had no associated QA qualifiers (SWAMP, 2004). |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board (Region 9 Basin Plan, pages 3-15 to 3-16; September 8, 1994). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
All samples were collected from one station, English Creek 2. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. Toxicity in the survival endpoint was detected in samples collected on October 28, 2002 and January 13, 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
English Canyon Creek is located in Hydrologic Unit 901.13. |
| QAPP Information: |
SWAMP QAPP. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16708 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| 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 |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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. Three of the 4 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. Three of the 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded due to limited samples. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16708 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
9089 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Three of the four samples showed excessive phosphorus concentrations. The samples were collected at English Canyon Creek 2, station 901SJENG2 on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003. (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
As described in San Diego Basin Plan; inland surface waters, bays and estuaries and coastal lagoon waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters-streams and other flowing waters, with all beneficial uses, the water quality objective for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at English Canyon Creek station 2(901SJENG2). (Latitude 33.6278, Longitude -117.6806). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |
| |
DECISION ID |
16709 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Nitrogen as N |
| 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 |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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. Two of the 4 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. Two of the 4 samples exceeded the Basin Plan 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded due to limited samples. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16709 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
9088 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Nitrogen as N |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Total |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples were collected at English Canyon Creek station 901SJENG2 on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003, two of the four showed excessive nitrogen concentrations(SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at English Canyon Creek station 2,(901SJENG2). (Latitude 33.6278, Longitude -117.6806). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |
| |
DECISION ID |
16456 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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. Three of the 4 samples exceed the water quality objective.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Three of 4 samples exceed the CTR criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16456 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
9090 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Selenium |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples were collected at English Canyon Creek 2, station 901SJENG2 on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003 Three of the four samples showed excessive phosphorus concentrations (SWAMP, 2007). |
| Data Reference: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
CTR Freshwater Chronic (CCC) 5 ug/L. (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at English Canyon Creek station 2,(901SJENG2). (Latitude 33.6278, Longitude -117.6806). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on October 2002; January 2003; April 2003; and May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA. |
| |
DECISION ID |
5317 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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.
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 the 4 samples exceeded the CDFG Aquatic life Hazard Assessment Criteria 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. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff 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 applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not exceeded. |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5317 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
2997 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Agricultural Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Of the four samples, one exceeded the criteria. (SWAMP, 2004). |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticides or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments, or biota at concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
CDFG Aquatic life Hazard Assessment Criteria 1-hour average 0.16 ug/L (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
One Station at English Creek: 33.62781 -117.68058 |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Aliso Creek Watershed 901.11. |
| QAPP Information: |
SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
5346 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Benzo[b]fluoranthene |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Two of 4 samples exceeded the CTR criteria for this pollutant and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5346 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
2996 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Benzo[b]fluoranthene |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples, two samples exceeding (SWAMP, 2004). |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
California Toxic Rule: (water and organisms) 0.0044 µg/L. |
| Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
One Station at English Creek: 33.62781 -117.68058. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Aliso Creek Watershed 901.11. |
| QAPP Information: |
SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
5318 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Dieldrin |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
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. A sufficient number of samples exceed the California Toxic Rule-Human Health-FW (water and organisms) .00014 mg/L.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Three of 4 samples exceeded the CTR human health freshwater criterion and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, SWRCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5318 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
2998 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Dieldrin |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples, three samples exceeding (SWAMP, 2004). |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
California Toxic Rule-Human Health-FW (water and organisms) .00014 μg/L. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
One Station at English Creek: 33.62781 -117.68058 |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Aliso Creek Watershed 901.11. |
| QAPP Information: |
SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |