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

Supporting Information

Regional Board 2 - San Francisco Bay Region

Water Body Name: Kirker Creek
Water Body ID: CAR2073104020080624164244
Water Body Type: River & Stream
 
DECISION ID
17613
 
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: 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 five 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 17613
 
LOE ID: 28916
 
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: 5
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Kirker 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 Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
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 two sampling locations on Kirker Creek - KIR020 (floodway) and KIR115 (Kirker Apartments).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected at both sites during spring and wet seasons of the 2003-2004 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
17614
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos
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 removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. One of 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 removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.

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 five samples exceeded the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 17614
 
LOE ID: 28932
 
Pollutant: Chlorpyrifos
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Kirker Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. Chlorpyrifos exceeded the chronic threshold during the wet (January) season sampling at KIR020 and KIR115 at sample concentrations of 0.11 and 0.0575 ug/L, respectively.
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: Chlorpyrifos 4-day average (chronic) - 0.0015 ug/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
  Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin Rivers Basins for the Control of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos. June 2006. Final Staff Report
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at two sampling locations on Kirker Creek - KIR020 (floodway) and KIR115 (Kirker Apartments).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected at both sites during spring and wet seasons of the 2003-2004 sampling season. One additional sample was taken at KIR020 during the 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
17615
 
Pollutant: Dacthal | 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 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 five 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 17615
 
LOE ID: 28958
 
Pollutant: Dacthal | 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: 5
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Kirker Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. None of the three samples exceeded the water quality objectives for PCBs, Dacthal, 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.
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; 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 two sampling locations: KIR020 (Floodway) and KIR115 (Kirker Creek Apartments) on Kirker Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during winter (2 samples), spring (2 samples), and one in dry season 2003.
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
17616
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
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. One 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. One of five 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 17616
 
LOE ID: 28933
 
Pollutant: Diazinon
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Kirker Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. Diazinon exceeded the acute threshold during the wet season sampling at KIR020 at a sample concentration of 0.741 ug/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
  Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin Rivers Basins for the Control of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos. June 2006. Final Staff Report
 
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: Diazinon 1-hour average (acute) - 0.1 ug/L.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
  Amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin Rivers Basins for the Control of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos. June 2006. Final Staff Report
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at two sampling locations on Kirker Creek - KIR020 (floodway) and KIR115 (Kirker Apartments).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected at both sites during spring and wet seasons of the 2003-2004 sampling season. One additional sample was taken at KIR020 during the 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
17617
 
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. Four 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.Four of six samples exceeded the water quality objective and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17617
 
LOE ID: 28619
 
Pollutant: Oxygen, Dissolved
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 4
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Kirker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2003 and 2004. 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 2.19 to 8.78 mg/L and varied with season. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels fell below the objective of 5 mg/L during both the spring (March 2003) and summer (July 2003) sampling events. The only values not below was 5.82 and 8.78 mg/L in February 2004 monitoring site.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: The numeric water quality objective for dissolved oxygen is 5.0 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, two, or three sites located on the mainstem of Kirker Creek that are representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of dissolved oxygen at 15 minute intervals lasting 1-15 days during spring (March 2003), summer dry season (July 2003), and winter wet season (February 2004).
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
17618
 
Pollutant: Selenium, 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 removal from the section 303(d) list under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. One 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 removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list.

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 five samples exceeded the water quality objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are 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 17618
 
LOE ID: 28919
 
Pollutant: Selenium, Total
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: Total
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: The Kirker Creek watershed was monitored as part of SWAMP assessment. Selenium exceeded the chronic threshold during the wet season sampling at KIR115 at a sample concentration of 8.1 ug/L.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
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.
Freshwater water quality objectives for selenium are 5 ug/L 4-day average (chronic) and 20 ug/L 1-hour (acute).
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline:
Guideline Reference:
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at two sampling locations on Kirker Creek - KIR020 (floodway) and KIR115 (Kirker Apartments).
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected at both sites during spring and wet seasons of the 2003-2004 sampling season. One additional sample was taken at KIR020 during the 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
17205
 
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 water body is being considered for listing 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 water body.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Temperature measurements exceeded the evaluation guideline in 2 out of 5 continuous deployments 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 17205
 
LOE ID: 30221
 
Pollutant: Temperature, water
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Cold Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: A water quality assessment was conducted at Kirker Creek as part of SWAMP study in 2003-2004. 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.

The estimated 7-day mean temperature was 16.73, 18.32 and 18.57oC in spring, and 12.71oC and 14.53oC during wet season. The 17 °C criterion for steelhead was exceeded in 2 out of 5 samples.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: Temperature objectives for enclosed bays and estuaries are specified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays of California" including any revisions to the plan. In addition, the following temperature objectives apply to surface waters: The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses.
The temperature of any cold or warm freshwater habitat shall not be increased by more than 5°F (2.8°C) above natural receiving water temperature.
Objective/Criterion Reference: San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
 
Evaluation Guideline: Sullivan et al. (2000) reviewed a wide range of studies incorporating information from laboratory-based research, field observations, and risk assessment approaches and developed criteria for assessing temperature risk to aquatic life. The 7-day mean temperature (maximum value of the 7-day moving average of the daily mean temperature) of 14.8°C was established as the upper threshold criterion for coho salmon and 17.0°C for steelhead trout. The risk assessment approach used by Sullivan et al. (2000) suggests that temperatures exceeding the above thresholds will cause 10% reduction in average growth compared to optimal conditions.
Guideline Reference: An Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria
 
Spatial Representation: Temperature was measured at 3 sites located in the mainstem of Kirker Creek during spring 2003 and at 2 sites in winter 2004.
Temporal Representation: Temperature was recorded at 15 minute intervals over 7 to 15 days during early spring (March/April 2003), and winter wet season (February 2004).
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
17619
 
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. [NUMBER] 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. [NUMBER] of [NUMBER] samples exceeded the ______ 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:
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 17619
 
LOE ID: 28701
 
Pollutant: pH
LOE Subgroup: Subgroup Missing
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 0
 
Data and Information Type: PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Comprehensive water quality assessment was conducted at Kirker Creek watershed as part of SWAMP assessment in 2003 and 2004. Continuous field monitoring of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific conductance to determine temporal variability in basic water quality at one, two or three locations, throughout Kirker Creek, ranging up to 15 days. The pH ranged from 6.71 to 8.16 and did not exceed the maximum or drop below the minimum at any deployment during the sampling season.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
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, two, or three sites located on the mainstem of Kirker Creek that are representative of the entire creek length.
Temporal Representation: At all locations the SWAMP performed continuous monitoring of pH at 15 minute intervals lasting up to 15 days during spring (March 2003), summer dry season (July 2003), and winter wet season (February 2004).
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
16096
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Source Unknown
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for listing under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This water body experiences toxicity.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data concerning current conditions and supporting the listing decision satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Two out of 5 water samples exhibited significant acute toxicity to Ceriodaphnia and growth of Selenastrum was significantly lower than the control in four out of five samples. The number of samples with detected significant water toxicity exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16096
 
LOE ID: 5340
 
Pollutant: Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Water
Matrix: Water
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 5
Number of Exceedances: 2
 
Data and Information Type: Ambient toxicity testing (acute)
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Five samples were collected by SWAMP in 2003 to evaluate water toxicity. Two samples collected during winter wet season were acutely toxic to Ceridaphnia with one sample causing 100% mortality. Selenastrum growth was significantly lower than the control in four out of five samples. On average all samples displayed statistically significant water column toxicity at least to one of the test organisms.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
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 two sampling locations: 1) just below the grazed rangeland in the upper reach of the Creek and 2) at the floodway area draining highly urbanized and industrial parts of the Kirker Creek watershed.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring, summer and winter wet seasons of 2003.
Environmental Conditions:
QAPP Information: 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
7644
 
Pollutant: Trash
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Illegal dumping | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Expected TMDL Completion Date: 2021
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: Pollutant
 
Weight of Evidence: This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.11 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.11, listing may be proposed based on the situation-specific weight of evidence.

One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The line of evidence consists of data from field visits/trash surveys conducted according to the Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) methodology.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. Data have been evaluated that supports this decision.
2. The Rapid Trash Assessment methodology results showed that this waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at two different locations on two different dates.

3. This waterbody is considered impaired by trash because there were exceedances of the evaluation guideline (poor condition category for the trash assessment metric) in more than one location or on more than one date.

4. The data used satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

5. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1 of the Policy.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are not met and trash contributes to or causes the problem.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7644
 
LOE ID: 5410
 
Pollutant: Trash
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Nuisance
Matrix: Not Specified
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Wildlife Habitat
 
Number of Samples: 6
Number of Exceedances: 5
 
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 and July 2003, and February 2004 according to the Rapid Trash Assessment methodology.

This waterbody had threat to aquatic life parameter scores in the poor category (indicating threat to Wildlife Habitat beneficial uses) at two different locations on two different dates.
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 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 two different locations in 2003 and 2004.
Temporal Representation: RTA data were collected for this waterbody in March and July in 2003 and February 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):
 
DECISION ID
7583
 
Pollutant: Pyrethroids
Final Listing Decision: List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: New Decision
Revision Status Revised
Sources: Channelization | Surface Runoff | Urban Runoff--Erosion and Sedimentation
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: This pollutant is being considered for listing under sections 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.

Three lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. This water body experiences sediment toxicity. It has been documented that high concentrations of pyrethroids contribute or are the most likely cause of the toxic effect.

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

This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:

1. The data concerning current conditions and supporting the listing decision satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.

2. The data used satisfy the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.

3. Four sediment samples exhibited significant amphipod toxicity and the benthic community is considered to be degraded. The number of samples with detected significant sediment and water toxicity exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. An additional analysis of toxicity units (TU) indicates that the likely cause of observed sediment toxicity is pyrethroid pesticides.

4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met.
 
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: After review of the available data and information, Water Board staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be added to the section 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL).

The San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007) will address this impairment.
 
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation:
 
USEPA Decision:
 
 
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 7583
 
LOE ID: 5341
 
Pollutant: Sediment Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Unknown
 
Number of Samples: 1
Number of Exceedances: 1
 
Data and Information Type: Toxicity testing of sediments
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data used to evaluate sediment toxicity comprise one sediment sample collected by the SWAMP in 2003. The sample displayed statistically significant toxicity during the 10-day Hyalella azteca test and exhibited 100% mortality.
Data Reference: Water Quality Monitoring and Bioassessment in Four San Francisco Bay Region Watersheds in 2003-2004: Kirker Creek, Mt. Diablo Creek, Petaluma River, and San Mateo Creek. Surface Water Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland. CA
 
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: Sample was collected at the lower part of the Kirker Creek watershed.
Temporal Representation: Sample was collected during spring season of 2003.
Environmental Conditions: Data are representative of the lower watershed (floodway) with the monitoring site located below predominantly residential and industrial areas.
QAPP Information: 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: 5345
 
Pollutant: Sediment Toxicity
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Unknown
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Toxicity testing of sediments
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Data used to evaluate sediment toxicity comprise three sediment samples collected in 2004 to determine pyrethroids toxicity in urban-dominated creeks as described in Amweg et al. (2006). All samples displayed statistically significant toxicity during the 10-day Hyalella azteca test and showed the highest mortality rates among all seven creeks studied in the East Bay area.
Data Reference: Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706
 
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: 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 sampling locations at the lower part of Kirker Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring and summer seasons of 2004. The last sampling event (late October 2004) occurred after the first rain of the season to capture the potential effects of dry season pesticide use.
Environmental Conditions: Data are representative of the lower watershed (floodway) with the monitoring site located below predominantly residential and industrial areas.
QAPP Information: 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: 5348
 
Pollutant: Pyrethroids
LOE Subgroup: Pollutant-Sediment
Matrix: Sediment
Fraction: None
 
Beneficial Use: Warm Freshwater Habitat
Aquatic Life Use: Unknown
 
Number of Samples: 3
Number of Exceedances: 3
 
Data and Information Type: Toxicity testing of sediments
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: Amweg et al. (2006) interpreted results of toxicity testing and sediment pyrethroid concentrations of seven compounds in three samples from Kirker Creek. Total pyrethroid concentrations at Kirker Creek samples were more than 50% higher than the concentrations detected in other six East Bay area creeks that were studied. The pyrethroid concentrations in Kirker Creek samples ranged from 66.1 to 186.2 ng/g. Also the spring sample contained the highest concentration of any single pyrethroid (deltamethrin) measured reaching the value of 57 ng/g.

The Kirker Creek samples had estimated TUs within the range of 5.67-7.2. Based on this analysis the study concluded that there was good evidence for the role of pyrethroids in the observed toxicity.
Data Reference: Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706
 
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: Pyrethroid concentration data and analysis of toxicity units (TU) were used to determine whether pyrethroids could be linked to the observed toxicity to Hyalella azteca. Amweg et al. (2006) determined that samples with less than 1 TU were nontoxic and those with TU greater than 2 were consistently toxic.
Guideline Reference: Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706
 
Spatial Representation: Data were collected at sampling locations at the lower part of Kirker Creek.
Temporal Representation: Samples were collected during spring and summer seasons of 2004. The last sampling event (late October 2004) occurred after the first rain of the season to capture the potential effects of dry season pesticide use.
Environmental Conditions: Data are representative of the lower watershed (floodway) with the monitoring site located below predominantly residential and industrial areas.
QAPP Information: Pyrethroid Insecticides and Sediment Toxicity in Urban Creeks from California and Tennessee, (Amweg et al., 2006).
QAPP Information Reference(s): Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science and Technology, 40(5): 1700-1706