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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: Cerrito Creek
Water Body ID: CAR2033001120080624162810
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
17428
 
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 are available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. 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 (Basin Plan) 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 17428
 
LOE ID: 28840
 
Pollutant: Arsenic | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Nickel | Silver | Zinc
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Dissolved
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Cerrito 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.
Data Reference: 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.
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 (CER020) on Cerrito Creek (Creekside Park).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry( June) seasons of 2005.
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
17460
 
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: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence 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 the three samples exceeded the water quality objective (Basin Plan), Central Valley Regional Board basin Plan and the US EPA 1987 guideline and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17460
 
LOE ID: 28957
 
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: 3
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Cerrito Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for PCBs, Chlorpyrifos, Dacthal, diazinon, disulfoton, endosulfan, Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH), methyl parathion, thiobencarb.
Data Reference: 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 (CER020) on Cerrito Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during wet (January), spring (April), and dry( June) seasons of 2005.
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
17431
 
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.

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 four samples exceeded the water quality objectives (Basin Plan)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 not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17431
 
LOE ID: 28708
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 4
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Cerrito Creek as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The 7 day average minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen ranged from 7.0 to 10.6 mg/L and varied with season. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels did not fall below the objective of 7 mg/L.
Data Reference: 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: 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 one site located on the mainstem of Cerrito Creek that was representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 7 days during spring (March 2004), two summer dry seasons (July and September 2004), and winter wet season (January 2005).
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
17434
 
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: 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 four samples exceeded An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OregoAn Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon (Sullivan K., Martin, D.J., Cardwell, R.D., Toll, J.E., Duke, S. 2000.) 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 not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17434
 
LOE ID: 28706
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 4
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Water quality assessment was conducted at the Cerrito Creek watershed as part of SWAMP study in 2004-2005. 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 one location. Continuous monitoring sondes were deployed 4 times at 1 monitoring location during wet, spring and two dry seasons. The measured temperatures ranged from 11.2°C to 20.9 °C and varied with season. During both dry season deployments at the monitoring location, the 7-day mean temperature threshold for steelhead was exceeded. In total, the 17 °C criterion for steelhead was exceeded in 2 out of 4.
Data Reference: 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 Board that such an alteration 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 a 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 a 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: Temperature was measured at one site located on the mainstem of Cerrito Creek representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of temperature at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-16 days during spring (March 2004), two summer dry seasons (July and September 2004), and winter wet season (January 2005).
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
17459
 
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 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 (Basin Plan)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 17459
 
LOE ID: 28821
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
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: TOXICITY TESTING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Three samples were collected in 2005 to evaluate water toxicity at one monitoring location near the mouth of Cerrito Creek. The toxicity tests included survival and reproduction of Ceriodaphnia, survival and growth of fathead minnow, and growth of Selenastrum. No toxicity was detected in the tested samples.
Data Reference: 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.
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, CER020, (Cerrito at Creekside Park) on three (3) occasions, representative of the lower reach of the creek.
Temporal Representation: SWAMP samples were collected during winter wet season (January), spring season (April), and dry season (June) of 2005.
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
17435
 
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. 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 four samples exceeded thewater quality objectives (Basin Plan)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 not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17435
 
LOE ID: 28705
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 4
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Cerrito Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2004 and 2005. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one or two locations. The pH ranged from 7.2 to 8.5 and varied with season. In all 4 samples pH did not exceed the minimum or the maximum levels recommended in the Basin Plan.
Data Reference: 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: 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 one site located on the mainstem of Cerrito Creek representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals lasting 7-16 days during spring (March 2004), summer dry seasons (July and September 2004), and winter wet season (January 2005).
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
7635
 
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. One line of evidence concerns the non-contact recreation beneficial use, and the second concerns the wildlife beneficial use. Both lines of evidence involve interpretation of data from field visits/trash surveys conducted according to the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) methodology.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. Data have been evaluated that supports this decision.
2. The Rapid Trash Assessment methodology results showed that this waterbody had level of trash parameter scores in the poor category (indicating impairment of non-contact water recreational beneficial uses) at one location on three different dates. This waterbody also had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at one location on three 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 data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not met and trash contributes to or causes the problem.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7635
 
LOE ID: 5347
 
Pollutant: Trash
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix: Not Specified
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Non-Contact Recreation
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data results were obtained through application the RTA methodology, developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The RTA documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for “level of trash” (relating to REC2) and threat to aquatic life (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in March, July, and November 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. There were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date.
Data Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
  Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of Rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: If the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) Parameter 1 (Level of Trash) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), REC2 is not supported. This level of trash distracts the eye on first glance, making the site unsuitable for recreation. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, trash distracts the eye on first glance. Stream, bank surfaces, and immediate riparian zone contain substantial levels of litter and debris (>100 pieces). Evidence of site being used frequently by people: many cans, bottles, and food wrappers, blankets, clothing.

If the RTA Parameter 3 (Threat to Aquatic Life) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), then WILD is not supported. This level of trash is a large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter that is detrimental to aquatic life. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter such as: hard or soft plastics, balloons, Styrofoam, cigarette butts; toxic items such as batteries, lighters, or spray cans; large clumps of yard waste or dumped leaf litter; or large amount (>50 pieces) of settleable glass or metal.
Guideline Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
 
Spatial Representation: RTA data were collected for this waterbody in one location in 2004.
Temporal Representation: RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March, July, and November in 2004.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: For RTA trash assessment data to be considered, the data must have been collected by field operators that have received a 2-hour training in the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.
QAPP Information Reference(s):
 
LOE ID: 5349
 
Pollutant: Trash
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix: Not Specified
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Wildlife Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Occurrence of conditions judged to cause impairment
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data results were obtained through application the RTA methodology, developed by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The RTA documents the total number and characteristics of pieces of trash per one hundred feet of stream or shoreline. The trash assessment protocol involves picking up and tallying all of the trash items found within the defined boundaries of a site. The tally results for level of trash (relating to REC2) and threat to aquatic life (relating to WILD) assessment parameters were considered for the listing determination. These results are available for field visits/trash surveys conducted in March, July, and November 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology. There were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date.
Data Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
  Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The Basin Plan prohibits discharge of Rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for floating material, Waters shall not contain floating material, including solids, liquids, foams, and scum, in concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.

The Basin Plan has a narrative objective for settleable material, Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in the deposition of material that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: If the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) Parameter 1 (Level of Trash) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), REC2 is not supported. This level of trash distracts the eye on first glance, making the site unsuitable for recreation. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, trash distracts the eye on first glance. Stream, bank surfaces, and immediate riparian zone contain substantial levels of litter and debris (>100 pieces). Evidence of site being used frequently by people: many cans, bottles, and food wrappers, blankets, clothing.

If the RTA Parameter 3 (Threat to Aquatic Life) is in the poor condition category (scores 0-5), then WILD is not supported. This level of trash is a large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter that is detrimental to aquatic life. The RTA defines poor condition for this parameter as follows, large amount (>50 pieces) of transportable, persistent, buoyant litter such as: hard or soft plastics, balloons, Styrofoam, cigarette butts; toxic items such as batteries, lighters, or spray cans; large clumps of yard waste or dumped leaf litter; or large amount (>50 pieces) of settleable glass or metal.
Guideline Reference: A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams
 
Spatial Representation: RTA data were collected for this waterbody in one location in 2004.
Temporal Representation: RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March, July, and November in 2004.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: For RTA trash assessment data to be considered, the data must have been collected by field operators that have received a 2-hour training in the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.
QAPP Information Reference(s):