Draft 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name:	Permanente Creek
Water Body ID:	CAR2055002119990218132449
Water Body Type:	River & Stream


DECISION ID	16095

Pollutant:	Sediment 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

Weight of Evidence:	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 Permanente Creek. One water sample 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 sample tested and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. The sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. 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, 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.

SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:

USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16095


LOE ID:	8574

Pollutant:	Sediment Toxicity
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix:	Sediment
Fraction:	None

Beneficial Use:	Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:	1
Number of Exceedances:	1

Data and Information Type:	TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality:	Data used to evaluate sediment toxicity comprise one sediment sample collected by the SWAMP in 2002. The sample displayed statistically significant toxicity during the 10-day Hyalella azteca test and exhibited diminished growth at 72.1% of control. In addition, many organic contaminants were found in the sediment above Threshold Effect Concentrations (TEC). Chlordane was particularly elevated above the Probable Effects Concentration (PEC) of 17.6 ug/kg.
Data Reference:	Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

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.
Objective/Criterion Reference:	San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)

Evaluation Guideline:	Sediment toxicity was evaluated according to the SWAMP methodology. Sample toxicity was determined by comparing mean organism response in samples and in negative controls. Statistical evaluation (alpha = 0.05) and a default threshold of 80% of the control value were used to establish whether the sediment 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 13221329

Spatial Representation:	Data were collected at one sampling location at the lower part of Permanente Creek.
Temporal Representation:	Sample was collected during the dry summer season of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:	The lower reach data are representative of the predominantly urbanized area with a highly modified channel draining into South San Francisco Bay.
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	7651

Pollutant:	Selenium, Total
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:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Weight of Evidence:	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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A sufficient number of samples exceed the NTR total selenium criterion for continuous concentration (chronic). Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of adding this water segment-pollutant combination to 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 were collected as part of the SWAMP and 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. Six of 12 samples exceeded the NTR criterion for total 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, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to 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 7651


LOE ID:	5765

Pollutant:	Selenium, Total
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total

Beneficial Use:	Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use:	Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	3

Data and Information Type:	PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality:	SCVURPPP (2007) monitoring program of Santa Clara Basin creeks collected water quality data at two monitoring locations corresponding to the SWAMP sampling points. Three out of six samples collected in 2005, 2006 and 2007 exceeded the NTR continuous total selenium concentration criterion.
Data Reference:	Monitoring and Assessment Summary Report: Santa Clara Basin Creeks (2002-2007). Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Program

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	NTR total selenium criterion for continuous concentration (chronic objective) in water for the protection of aquatic life is 5.0µg/L (Basin Plan 2007, Table 3-4). The criterion is linked and applicable in streams with waters that support cold water ecosystems, including preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
Objective/Criterion Reference:	San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)

Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:	Data were collected at two sampling locations representative of upper reach of the creek (2 samples) and the lower reach at the bottom of the watershed (4 samples).
Temporal Representation:	SCVURPPP samples were collected during dry and wet seasons from 2005 through 2007.
Environmental Conditions:	The lower reach data are representative of the predominantly urbanized area with a highly modified channel draining into South San Francisco Bay.
QAPP Information:	All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):


LOE ID:	4790

Pollutant:	Selenium, Total
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	Total

Beneficial Use:	Cold Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use:	Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	3

Data and Information Type:	PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality:	Water quality assessment was conducted in the Permanente Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment. The aim of the monitoring was to determine patterns of water quality, protection of beneficial uses and potential impacts of land use and water management. Sampled parameters included physical and biological indicators, conventional water quality, water metals and toxicity as well as sediment metals and toxicity. Three out of six samples collected at two monitoring locations during 2002 exceeded the NTR continuous total selenium concentration criterion.
Data Reference:	Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	NTR total selenium criterion for continuous concentration (chronic objective) in water for the protection of aquatic life is 5.0µg/L (Basin Plan 2007, Table 3-4). The criterion is linked and applicable in streams with waters that support cold water ecosystems, including preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.
Objective/Criterion Reference:	San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)

Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:

Spatial Representation:	Data were collected at two sampling locations representative of upper reach of the creek (3 samples) and the lower reach at the bottom of the watershed (3 samples).
Temporal Representation:	Samples were collected during spring, dry and wet season of 2002.
Environmental Conditions:	The lower reach data are representative of the predominantly urbanized area with a highly modified channel draining into South San Francisco Bay.
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	9171

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:	Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date:	2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution:	Pollutant

Weight of Evidence:	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 this pollutant. This water body experiences toxicity. Based on the readily available data for this water body, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of adding this water segment-pollutant combination to 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. Six out of 6 water samples exhibited significant chronic toxicity to Selenastrum and the benthic community was considered to be degraded. The number of samples with detected significant water toxicity exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1. 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, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to 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 9171


LOE ID:	8571

Pollutant:	Toxicity
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Water
Matrix:	Water
Fraction:	None

Beneficial Use:	Cold Freshwater Habitat

Number of Samples:	6
Number of Exceedances:	6

Data and Information Type:	TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality:	Six samples were collected in 2002-2003 to evaluate water toxicity at two monitoring locations at the most downstream and upstream reaches of the creek. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum. In all six samples at both locations, during all 3 seasons Selenastrum growth was significantly reduced. Selenastrum growth on average did not exceed 60.9% of the control with one sample from the downstream location exhibiting only 44.6% growth compared to control. At one station during winter Ceriodaphnia had significant mortality.
Data Reference:	Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Nine San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds: Walker Creek, Lagunitas Creek, San Leandro Creek, Wildcat Creek/San Pablo Creek, Suisun Creek, Arroyo Las Positas, Pescadero Creek/Butano Creek, San Gregorio Creek, and Stevens Creek/Permanente Creek. Oakland, CA: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

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:	San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)

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 13221329
	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 two sampling locations representative of upper reach of the creek (3 samples) and the lower reach at the bottom of the watershed (3 samples).
Temporal Representation:	SWAMP samples were collected during spring, dry and wet season of 2002-2003.
Environmental Conditions:	The lower reach data are representative of the predominantly urbanized area with a highly modified channel draining into South San Francisco Bay.
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	7646

Pollutant:	Trash
Final Listing Decision:	List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision:	New Decision
Revision Status	Revised
Sources:	Illegal dumping \| 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 3.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.11, listing may be proposed based on the situation-specific weight of evidence. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The line of evidence consists of data from field visits/trash surveys conducted according to the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) methodology. Based on the readily available trash assessment data for this waterbody, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification available in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination to the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. Data have been evaluated that supports this decision. 2. The Rapid Trash Assessment methodology results showed that this waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at the only location surveyed in this waterbody on four different dates. 3. This waterbody is considered impaired by trash because there were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date. 4. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 5. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy.

RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:	After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not met and trash contributes to or causes the problem.

SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:

USEPA Decision:

Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7646


LOE ID:	5368

Pollutant:	Trash
LOE Subgroup:	Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix:	Not Specified
Fraction:	None

Beneficial Use:	Wildlife Habitat

Number of Samples:	4
Number of Exceedances:	4

Data and Information Type:	Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment
Data Used to Assess Water Quality:	Data results were obtained through application the RTA methodology, developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The RTA documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for level of trash (relating to REC2) and threat to aquatic life (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in March, July, and October 2003, and March 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. There were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date.
Data Reference:	A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
	Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description

Water Quality Objective/Criterion:	The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas. The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference:	San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)

Evaluation Guideline:	If the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) Parameter 1 (Level of Trash) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), REC2 is not supported. This level of trash distracts the eye on first glance, making the site unsuitable for recreation. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, trash distracts the eye on first glance. Stream, bank surfaces, and immediate riparian zone contain substantial levels of litter and debris (>100 pieces). Evidence of site being used frequently by people: many cans, bottles, and food wrappers, blankets, clothing. If the RTA Parameter 3 (Threat to Aquatic Life) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), then WILD is not supported. This level of trash is a large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter that is detrimental to aquatic life. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter such as: hard or soft plastics, balloons, Styrofoam, cigarette butts; toxic items such as batteries, lighters, or spray cans; large clumps of yard waste or dumped leaf litter; or large amount (>50 pieces) of settleable glass or metal.
Guideline Reference:	A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams

Spatial Representation:	RTA data were collected for this waterbody at one location in 2003 and 2004. This location scored in the poor condition category for the threat to aquatic life parameter.
Temporal Representation:	RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March, July, and October in 2003 and March 2004. Data from all four months scored in the poor condition category for the threat to aquatic life parameter.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information:	For RTA trash assessment data to be considered, the data must have been collected by field operators that have received a 2-hour training in the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.
QAPP Information Reference(s):