| |
DECISION ID |
17599 |
| |
| 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 |
| |
| 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.
Two lines of evidence are 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. |
| |
| 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 applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
29013 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Oxygen, Dissolved |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
9 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two or three locations. The 7-day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen was computed for 5 out of 9 deployments. The values ranged from 8.08 to 10.75 mg/L and did not fall below the 7.0 mg/L minimum. The length of monitoring in the remaining 4 deployments was shorter that 7 days. |
| 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: |
The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 7.0 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: |
San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Dissolved oxygen was measured at two to four sites throughout the watershed. |
| Temporal Representation: |
At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 5 to 14 days during spring, two dry seasons, and winter wet season throughout 2002. |
| 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)
|
|
| |
| LOE ID: |
29012 |
| |
| 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: |
Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2002. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at two or three locations. The 7-day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen was computed for 5 out of 9 deployments. The values ranged from 8.08 to 10.75 mg/L and did not fall below the 5.0 mg/L minimum. The length of monitoring in the remaining 4 deployments was shorter that 7 days. |
| 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: |
The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 5.0 mg/L minimum for waters designated as warm 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: |
San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Dissolved oxygen was measured at two or three sites per season located throughout the Walker Creek watershed. |
| Temporal Representation: |
At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 5 to 14 days during spring, two dry seasons, and winter wet season throughout 2002. |
| 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 |
9432 |
| |
| 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 |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
One line of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this water body.
Based on the readily available data for this water body, 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. Temperature measurements at 7 continuous deployments exceeded the applicable water quality objectives for waters designated as cold water habitat on only two occasions 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, Water Board staff concludes that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that this water body is not meeting applicable water quality standards for temperature to support the cold freshwater habitat beneficial use. Therefore, the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 9432 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
8768 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Temperature, water |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
7 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water quality assessment was conducted at the Walker Creek Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in Winter 2001, and Spring 2002. 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 5 locations.
The 14.8 °C criterion for coho salmon was exceeded in 2 out of 7 continuous temperature deployments during the dry summer season at the downstream reach of the creek. The 17 °C criterion for steelhead was never exceeded. |
| 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 |
| |
Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment |
| |
| 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 Water Board that such alteration in temperature 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: |
San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) |
| |
| 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 the 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 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: |
There were 5 locations on Walker Creek ranging from lower to upper watershed regions. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Continuous deployments with 15 minute increment sampling in Winter 2001 and Spring 2002. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
The Walker Creek watershed has a drainage area of 73 square miles, mostly in northwestern Marin County, with a small portion in Sonoma County. Significant tributaries to Walker Creek include Keys Creek (also known as Keyes), which flows through the gentle hills east of Tomales,
joining Walker Creek near Tomales Bay; Chileno Creek, which flows through Chileno Valley; and, in the upper watershed, Salmon Creek and Arroyo Sausal Creek, which flow through Hicks Valley. Frink and Verde Canyons each support ephemeral streams that join Walker Creek
upstream from Chileno Creek. Soulajule Reservoir impounds the 15 square mile drainage of
Arroyo Sausal. |
| 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 |
17601 |
| |
| 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 |
| |
| 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 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 eleven 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. |
| |
| 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 applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17601 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
29008 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
pH |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
11 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Water quality assessment was conducted at the Walker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2002. Continuous field monitoring at 15 minute increments of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and specific conductance was conducted to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at between two and four sites. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 11 times at 2 to 4 monitoring locations during wet, spring and two dry seasons. The pH ranged from 6.63 to 9.07. The pH exceeded the threshold of 8.5 in two out of 11 deployments. |
| 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: |
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: |
San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
pH was measured at between two and four sites located throughout the Walker Creek watershed. |
| Temporal Representation: |
In 2002 the SWAMP Program performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals for periods of 5 to 14 days in each of four times: winter (2 sites), spring (3 sites), and two summer dry season (2 and 4 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): |
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 |
4224 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Mercury |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Revised |
| Sources: |
Mine Tailings | Surface Mining |
| TMDL Name: |
Walker Creek Mercury |
| TMDL Project Code: |
69 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: |
09/29/2008 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
Walker Creek Mercury TMDL has been developed and approved by USEPA (9/29/2008) and an approved implementation plan is expected to result in attainment of the standard. This provides a sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed portion of the section 303(d) list. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
Water Board staff conclude that the water body should be placed in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because a TMDL has been approved by USEPA and an approved implementation plan is in place. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
N/A |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4224 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
3714 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Mercury |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Tissue |
| Matrix: |
Tissue |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
0 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Unspecified |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Unspecified |
| Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Temporal Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
4225 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nutrients |
| 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: |
Agriculture |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
N/A |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4225 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
3715 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nutrients |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
0 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Unspecified |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
Unspecified |
| Guideline Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Temporal Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
4226 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sedimentation/Siltation |
| 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: |
Agriculture |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2013 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
303(d) listing decisions made prior to 2006 were not held in an assessment database. The Regional Boards will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The Regional Board will update this decision when new data and information become available and are assessed. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
N/A |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
|
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 4226 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
3716 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Sedimentation/Siltation |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Not Recorded |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Cold Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
0 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Unspecified--This LOE is a placeholder to support a 303(d) listing decision made prior to 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference pre-2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
|
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Temporal Representation: |
Unspecified |
| Environmental Conditions: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information: |
Unspecified |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
6019 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Pathogens |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2006) |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| TMDL Name: |
Tomales Bay Pathogens |
| TMDL Project Code: |
10 |
| Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: |
01/10/2007 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
| |
| Weight of Evidence: |
USEPA placed this waterbody-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) because the USEPA approved Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL included this water body segment. The Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL was approved by USEPA on 1/10/07. |
| |
| RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
No new data were assessed for 2008. The decision has not changed. The water body should remain in the Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed category of the section 303(d) list because the TMDL approved by USEPA and the implementation plan are in place. |
| |
| SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
N/A |
| |
| USEPA Decision: |
The USEPA final decision for the 2006 303(d) list added this Walker Creek-pathogens listing to the 'being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL' portion of the 303(d) List, because the USEPA approved the Tomales Bay Pathogen TMDL on 1/10/2007 and it includes Walker Creek. |
| |
| |
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 6019 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
1766 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Pathogens |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Narrative Description Data |
| Matrix: |
-N/A |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Shellfish Harvesting |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
0 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Not Specified |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
In the USEPA final decision for the 2006 303(d) list added a Walker Creek-pathogens listing because the USEPA approved Tomales Bay TMDL includes Walker Creek. This is a placeholder LOE for this USEPA addition to the 303(d) list. |
| Data Reference: |
Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
|
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
|
| Temporal Representation: |
|
| Environmental Conditions: |
|
| QAPP Information: |
QA Info Missing |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |