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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: San Leandro Creek, Lower
Water Body ID: CAR2042001219990218140451
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
17656
 
Pollutant: Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3
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 lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of three samples exceeded the water quality guidelines 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 17656
 
LOE ID: 29286
 
Pollutant: Alkalinity, Carbonate as CaCO3
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three water column samples were assessed. None of the samples exceeded the objectives.
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: Surface waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect any designated beneficial use.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: National Recommendations for Water Quality Criteria, Gold Book, USEPA,1986. Alkalinity standard at 20000 ug/L (chronic).
Guideline Reference: Quality Criteria for Water 1986. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Regulations and Standards. Washington D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001.
 
Spatial Representation: Three samples were taken from one monitoring location at the lower portion of the creek (SLE030).
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken from dry, spring and wet seasons in the years 2001 and 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: The QA/QC was in compliance with SWAMP's Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP).
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
17657
 
Pollutant: Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
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. 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 the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives and water quality guidelines 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 17657
 
LOE ID: 28059
 
Pollutant: Ammonia (Unionized) | Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: SWAMP collected three water samples that were analyzed for ammonia and un-ionized ammonia. None of them exceeded the evaluation criteria.
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 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Basin Plan states that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is caused by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances.

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board Basin Plan stated that the discharge of wastes shall not cause receiving water to contain concentrations of un-ionized ammonia in excess of 0.025mg/l annual median.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: For Total Ammonia: EPA's Lifetime Health advisory level for total ammonia is 30.0 mg/L as stated on page 8 of the 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. This Advisory Level is defined as "the concentration of a chemical in drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse noncarcinogenic effects for up to ten days of exposure."
Guideline Reference: 2006 edition of the drinking water standards and health advisories. EPA 822-R-03-013
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were taken from one monitoring location at the lower portion of the creek (SLE030).
Temporal Representation: The samples were taken from dry, spring and wet seasons in the years 2001 and 2002.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: The QA was in compliance with SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
17651
 
Pollutant: Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of two samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
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 17651
 
LOE ID: 28850
 
Pollutant: Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The San Leandro Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for arsenic, chromium VI, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc.
Concentrations of total dissolved chromium were well below the objective for chromium VI.
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.
Table 3-4 in the Basin Plan (2007) lists freshwater water quality objectives for toxic pollutants: arsenic- 150 ug/L, chromium VI - 11 ug/L, copper - 9.0 ug/L, lead - 2.5 ug/L; nickel - 52 ug/L, silver-3.4 ug/L and zinc - 120 ug/L.
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 one sampling location on San Leandro Creek - SLE030 (Empire Road) in the most downstream portion of the creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring and dry seasons of the 2001-2002 sampling season.
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
17652
 
Pollutant: Cadmium
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: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of two samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
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 17652
 
LOE ID: 27989
 
Pollutant: Cadmium
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Lower San Leandro Creek was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the two samples exceeded the water quality objectives cadmium.
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 objective in the Basin Plan is expressed by formulas where H=ln (hardness) as CaCO3 in mg/l: The four-day average objective for cadmium is e (exp 0.7852H - 3.490). This is 1.1 ug/l at a hardness of 100mg/l as CaCO3. The one hour objective is e (exp 1.128H - 3.828). This is 3.9ug/l at a hardness of 100mg/l as CaCO3.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: The samples were collected at one monitoring site (SLE030) from the most downstream location in the creek.
Temporal Representation: The samples were collected in two seasons: Spring and Dry.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: The QA/QC procedure was in compliance with Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program's (SWAMP) Quality Assurance Management Plan (QAMP).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
17653
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of two samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
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 17653
 
LOE ID: 29003
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos | Dacthal | Diazinon | Disulfoton | Endosulfan | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Methyl Parathion | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Thiobencarb/Bolero
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The San Leandro Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. Neither of the samples exceeded the water quality objectives for Chlorpyrifos, Dacthal, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH), methyl parathion, thiobencarb.
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: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances that are lethal to or that produce other detrimental responses in aquatic organisms.
There shall be no chronic toxicity in ambient waters. Chronic toxicity is a detrimental biological effect on growth rate, reproduction, fertilization success, larval development, population abundance, community composition, or any other relevant measure of the health of an organism, population, or community.
Diazinon water quality objective, 0.1 ug/L (acute)
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: PCBs - 0.014 ug/L freshwater continuous Concentration; Chlorpyrifos - 0.015 ug/L (chronic); Dacthal (DCPA) - 14300 ug/L (acute); Disulfoton (Disyston) - 0.05 ug/L (acute); Endosulfan - 0.056 ug/L (chronic)/0.22 ug/L (acute); HCH, gamma-(gamma BHC, Lindane) - 0.95 ug/L (acute); methyl parathion - 0.08 ug/L (acute); Thiobencarb - 3.1 ug/L (acute).
Guideline Reference: National recommended water quality criteria: 2002. EPA-822-R-02-047 Washington, D.C. USEPA
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location (SLE030) in the San Leandro Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet, spring, and dry seasons of the 2001 - 2002 sampling season.
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
7573
 
Pollutant: Chromium (total)
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 3.1 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. No 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 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. All two samples show above background concentrations of dissolved chromium but the proportion of toxic chromium VI in these samples cannot be determined. The NTR criterion for chromium III is not exceeded in these samples and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that though this water body has elevated levels of chromium, this water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because we cannot determine that applicable water quality standards are being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7573
 
LOE ID: 4792
 
Pollutant: Chromium (total)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Wildlife Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water quality assessment was conducted at the confluence of the Lower San Leandro Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment.

Two samples collected during 2001 monitoring showed concentrations of total dissolved chromium from 14.5 to more than 30 µg/L. Dissolved chromium levels for these samples were at least an order of magnitude higher than at all other sites that were monitored and the site received an overall poor bioassessment score. The dissolved chromium concentrations were compared to the chromium III chronic criterion as chromium III occurs naturally in the environment and it is the most common form of chromium in waters around the Bay. Chromium concentrations in these samples are below the NTR objective for chromium III.
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 Chromium III criterion for continuous concentration (chronic objective) in water for the protection of aquatic life is 180.0µg/L. The criterion is linked and applicable in streams with waters that support warm 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 a sampling location at the bottom of the watershed.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring and dry season of 2001.
Environmental Conditions: Data are representative of a channelized creek flowing through residential and urban industrial areas that predominate in the Lower San Leandro Creek watershed. Lake Chabot forms a strong hydrologic divide between this part of the watershed and the upper portion of San Leandro Creek and delineates land uses and beneficial uses within the watershed.
QAPP Information: 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
17654
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.3 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.3 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

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

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. One of two samples exceeded the number of Escherichia coli (E. Coli) counts 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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17654
 
LOE ID: 29019
 
Pollutant: Escherichia coli (E. Coli)
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Water Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PATHOGEN MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Samples were collected as part of SWAMP sampling in the summer of 2001 at 7-day intervals at two locations and the geometric mean of the samples calculated over a five week interval. The geometric mean for one of the two samples (SLE070) was 696 MPN/100ML and exceeded the US EPA criteria. *Note- MPN is most probable number.
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: Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and uses of natural hot springs.

Water contact implies a risk of waterborne disease transmission and involves human health; accordingly, criteria required to protect this use are more stringent than those for more casual water-oriented recreation.
U.S. EPA water quality criteria for water contact recreation based on the frequency of use a particular area receives - 1986: the E. coli criterion is not to exceed 126 organisms/100 mL. The value is expressed as a 7-day geometric mean based on five or more samples per 30–day period; designated beach (max) 235 MPN/100 mL.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
  Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Samples were collected at SLE070 (Root Park), SLE090 (Chabot City Park).
Temporal Representation: The SLE070 and SLE090 sites were tested on 8/07/01,8/14/01, 8/21/01, 8/28/01, 9/04/01.
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
17658
 
Pollutant: Lead
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample 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 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 one sample exceeded the water quality guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples is needed for application of 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 Boards 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17658
 
LOE ID: 28765
 
Pollutant: Lead
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Lead in one sediment sample collected in fall 2001 exceeded the PEC level at a sample concentration of 130 mg/kg dw.
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 Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) lead - 128 mg/kg dw.
Guideline Reference: Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
 
Spatial Representation: One sediment sample was collected from the most downstream site in San Leandro Creek at Empire Road.
Temporal Representation: Sediment sample was collected in September of 2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
17660
 
Pollutant: Nickel
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 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample 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 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 one sample exceeded the water quality guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples is needed for application of 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 Boards 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17660
 
LOE ID: 28764
 
Pollutant: Nickel
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Nickel in one sediment sample collected in fall 2001 exceeded the PEC levels at a sample concentration of 74 mg/kg dw.
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 Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) nickel - 48.6 mg/kg dw.
Guideline Reference: Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31
 
Spatial Representation: One sediment sample was collected from the most downstream site in San Leandro Creek at Empire Road.
Temporal Representation: Sediment sample was collected in September of 2001.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: All samples were collected and analyzed using procedures comparable with the SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan (SWRCB, 2002).
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
17655
 
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 are 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.

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 eight samples exceeded the water quality guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2.
4. Pursuant to SECTION 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
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 information to determine that the standards are not met.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17655
 
LOE ID: 29000
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 4
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at San Leandro 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 at three locations (one location per season). The 7 day average minimum concentration was computed for 2 deployments only. Two other deployments were shorter than 7 days, which did not allow to estimate the 7-day average minimum concentration. The 7-day average concentrations in two samples were 2.48 and 7.77 mg/L. DO was below the water quality objective of 5 mg/L in one sample.
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 four sites located on the mainstem of San Leandro Creek below Lake Chabot.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 6 to16 days. SLE050 - February 2002 winter wet season; SLE050 - April 2002 spring wet season; SLE070 - May 2002 summer dry season and SLE090 - October 2002 fall dry season.
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: 28570
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 4
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at San Leandro 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 three locations (one location per season). The 7 day average minimum concentration was computed for 2 samples only. Two other deployments were shorter than 7 days, which did not allow to estimate the 7-day average minimum concentration. The 7-day average concentrations in two samples were 2.48 and 7.77 mg/L. DO was below the water quality objective of 7 mg/L in one sample.
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 four sites located on the mainstem of San Leandro Creek below Lake Chabot.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 6 to16 days. SLE050 - February 2002 winter wet season; SLE050 - April 2002 spring wet season; SLE070 - May 2002 summer dry season and SLE090 - October 2002 fall dry season.
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
17659
 
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 placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample 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 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 one sample exceeded the water quality guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples is needed for application of 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 Boards 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17659
 
LOE ID: 28868
 
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 spring 2005. This sample displayed statistically significant toxicity during the Hyalella azteca test. Hyalella azteca growth was only 0% of the control, there was 0% survival.
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: 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 1322–1329
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location at the lower part of San Leandro Creek.
Temporal Representation: A sample was collected in spring season 2001.
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
17661
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
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 one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One sample 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 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 two sample exceeded the water quality guidelines and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples is needed for application of 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 Boards 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.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17661
 
LOE ID: 29028
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 2
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Two samples were collected in 2001-2002 sampling season to evaluate water toxicity at one location in San Leandro Creek Lower. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum.
One of the two samples demonstrated adverse impacts to Ceriodaphnia reproduction with 63 percent of control.
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 1322–1329
  Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA/600/4-91/002. Third Edition. July 1994
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at one sampling location - SLE030 (Empire Rd), in the most downstream portion of the creek
Temporal Representation: SWAMP samples were collected during dry and spring seasons of the 2001-2002 sampling season.
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
7656
 
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.

Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Both lines of evidence rely on inspection of photographic evidence by Regional Water Board staff trained to conduct the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) methodology. The staff inspected these photos and applied the RTA methodology to develop Category 1 (Level of Trash) and Category 3 (Threat to Aquatic Life) scores for each photograph.

Based on the readily available photographic evidence 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. Photographic evidence has been evaluated that supports this decision.
2. Applying the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology to the photographic evidence suggests that this waterbody had level of trash parameter scores in the poor category (indicating impairment of non-contact water recreational beneficial uses) at three locations on four different dates. This waterbody also had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at three different locations on six different dates.

3. This waterbody is considered impaired by trash because there were exceedances of the evaluation guidelines (poor condition category for the trash assessment metrics) 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 evidence, 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 7656
 
LOE ID: 5668
 
Pollutant: Trash
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix: Not Specified
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Non-Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 9
Number of Exceedances: 7
 
Data and Information Type: Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data available consist of photographic evidence of trash and interpretation of these photos by an experienced trash assessment specialist. Each photograph was analyzed to establish the RTA score for the level of trash and threat to aquatic life parameters, which relate to impairment of REC2 and WILD, respectively. Only those photos clear enough to establish these RTA scores were relied on for the listing determination. These results are available for the following dates and locations on Lower San Leandro Creek:
98th Ave. on 4/11/2001, 12/20/2002, 12/10/2003, 12/16/2004, 12/26/2004, 1/5/2005, 1/11/2006, and 2/23/2007
Hegenberger Road on 4/11/2001, and 2/23/2007
Leet Drive on 12/10/2003, and 1/11/2006

This waterbody had level of trash parameter scores in the poor category (indicating impairment of non-contact water recreational beneficial uses) at three locations on four different dates.
Data Reference: Report from Roger James and Larry Kolb containing Trash Photos submitted for consideration in 2008 303(d) listing process
  Assessment by Matt Cover of Trash Photos (submitted to Region 2 in response to 2008 Data Solicitation)
  Archive of Trash Photos for Lower San Leandro Creek submitted for 2008 303(d) list consideration
 
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. Regional Water Board staff trained in the RTA inspected the available photographic evidence and applied the assessment method to determine the Level of Trash score.

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. Regional Water Board staff trained in the RTA inspected the available photographic evidence and applied the assessment method to determine the Threat to Aquatic Life score.
Guideline Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
 
Spatial Representation: Photographic evidence was analyzed using the RTA methodology for this waterbody for three different locations spanning dates from 2001 through 2007.
Temporal Representation: Photographic evidence was collected for this waterbody on six separate dates from 2001 through 2007.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Assessments of the photographic evidence using the RTA were performed by Regional Water Board staff person who was a co-author of the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.

Assessments based on photographic evidence were only conducted when sufficient reach-scale and close-up photos were available for a site on a specific date. Photos used for the evaluation needed to be numerous enough and clear enough to document the level of trash at the site in a similar way as the assessor would experience during an actual site visit in the field. For example, at a minimum, one reach-scale photograph (showing at least a 100 linear foot section of the waterbody) and two close-up photographs (of representative trash deposits) were required.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
LOE ID: 5667
 
Pollutant: Trash
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix: Not Specified
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Wildlife Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 9
Number of Exceedances: 9
 
Data and Information Type: Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data available consist of photographic evidence of trash and interpretation of these photos by an experienced trash assessment specialist. Each photograph was analyzed to establish the RTA score for the level of trash and threat to aquatic life parameters, which relate to impairment of REC2 and WILD, respectively. Only those photos clear enough to establish these RTA scores were relied on for the listing determination. These results are available for the following dates and locations on Lower San Leandro Creek:
98th Ave. on 4/11/2001, 12/20/2002, 12/10/2003, 12/16/2004, 12/26/2004, 1/5/2005, 1/11/2006, and 2/23/2007
Hegenberger Road on 4/11/2001, and 2/23/2007
Leet Drive on 12/10/2003, and 1/11/2006

This waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at three different locations on six different dates.
Data Reference: Report from Roger James and Larry Kolb containing Trash Photos submitted for consideration in 2008 303(d) listing process
  Assessment by Matt Cover of Trash Photos (submitted to Region 2 in response to 2008 Data Solicitation)
  Archive of Trash Photos for Lower San Leandro Creek submitted for 2008 303(d) list consideration
 
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. Regional Water Board staff trained in the RTA inspected the available photographic evidence and applied the assessment method to determine the Level of Trash score.

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. Regional Water Board staff trained in the RTA inspected the available photographic evidence and applied the assessment method to determine the Threat to Aquatic Life score.
Guideline Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
 
Spatial Representation: Photographic evidence was analyzed using the RTA methodology for this waterbody for three different locations spanning dates from 2001 through 2007.
Temporal Representation: Photographic evidence was collected for this waterbody on six separate dates from 2001 through 2007.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: Assessments of the photographic evidence using the RTA were performed by Regional Water Board staff person who was a co-author of the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.

Assessments based on photographic evidence were only conducted when sufficient reach-scale and close-up photos were available for a site on a specific date. Photos used for the evaluation needed to be numerous enough and clear enough to document the level of trash at the site in a similar way as the assessor would experience during an actual site visit in the field. For example, at a minimum, one reach-scale photograph (showing at least a 100 linear foot section of the waterbody) and two close-up photographs (of representative trash deposits) were required.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
DECISION ID
6930
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
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: Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
TMDL Name: San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon
TMDL Project Code: 9
Date TMDL Approved by USEPA: 05/16/2007
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.

The USEPA final decision on the 2006 303(d) list was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007).
 
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 on the 2006 303(d) list was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007).
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 6930
 
LOE ID: 1793
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
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 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):