| |
DECISION ID |
17905 |
| |
| 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: |
Pollution |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 10 of 10 samples exceeded the water quality objective.
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 water segment 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. 10 of 10 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, however as required under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, pollutant(s) could not be directly associated with the Benthic Community Effects.
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: |
|
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
26724 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Benthic Community Effects |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Adverse Biological Responses |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
10 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
10 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Ten samples of IBI data were taken from October 2002 to May 2007 at one sampling site. Of the total number of samples, all ten samples exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. |
| Data Reference: |
Stream Bioassessment Data. Co-permitee Data. Collected 2002-2007. |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: 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. (SDRWQCB, 1995) |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) |
| Guideline Reference: |
"A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams". Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): 1-13.
|
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at one site: MB-RC on Rose Creek. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Sampling occurred on October 2002 and during May and October from 2003 to 2006 and one event on May 2007. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Manual for Freshwater Bioassessment. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL FOR FRESHWATER BIOASSESSMENT
Revision 0 |
| |
DECISION ID |
17012 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Sources: |
Unknown Nonpoint Source | Unknown Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 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. Four of four 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 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. Four of four samples exceed the water quality objective for toxicity, 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 17012 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
21389 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Toxicity |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Toxicity |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
4 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four samples were collected at Rose Canyon Creek station 906LPRSC4 from March 2002 to September 2002 and they showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the following tests: Selenastrum algae growth test - three of the four samples. Ceriodaphnia dubia survival/reproductive test - two of the four samples were toxic. Results were from California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report, 2007. |
| 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: |
Monitoring data for Region 9 |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water Toxicity Samples were collected at Rose Canyon Creek station 906LPRSC4; (Latitude 33.1299, Longitude -117.1924). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on March, April, June, and September 2002. |
| 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): |
| |
DECISION ID |
5395 |
| |
| 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. One of four of the samples exceed the Ca. Dept, of Fish & Game guideline water quality objective for diazinon.
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 four of the samples exceed the Ca. DFG guideline water quality objective for diazinon 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: |
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. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 5395 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
3326 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Adverse Biological Responses |
| Matrix: |
-N/A |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
4 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
One of 4 samples exceeding the CDFG guideline. (SWAMP, 2004). |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticide or combination or pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
CDFG Aquatic life toxicity one hour average 0.16 ug/L. (Siepman & Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004). |
| Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
One sample station at Rose Canyon Creek: 32.83703 -117.23178. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected from March through October 2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Rose Canyon Creek Watershed: 906.40. |
| QAPP Information: |
SWAMP Quality Assurance Plan. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
17011 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Natural Sources | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
| 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.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Three of four of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for selenium.
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 four of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for selenium, 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 17011 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7935 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Selenium |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| 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 monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four water samples were collected at Rose Canyon Creek station. Three samples showed excessive selenium concentrations according to resluts in the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Report from 2007. Samples were collected on March, April, June, and September 2002. |
| 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). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
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. |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Water samples were collected at Rose Canyon Creek station 906LPRSC4; (Latitude 32.8371625, Longitude -117.23298). |
| Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected on March, April, June, and September 2002. |
| 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. |