| Water Body Name: | Moro Canyon Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9011100020081210154547 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
29050 |
Region 9 |
Moro Canyon Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of the four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for nitrogen. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Two of the four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for nitrogen and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26193 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Subgroup Missing | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 2 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two of the four samples collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2) (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182) from October 2002 to May 2003 showed excessive nitrogen concentrations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2). (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in October 2002; January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
28245 |
Region 9 |
Moro Canyon Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosphorus. 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 the four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosphorus and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26194 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All four samples collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2) (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182) from October 2002 to May 2003 showed excessive phosphorus concentrations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin Goal of 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorus in streams and other flowing waters (RWQCB, 2007). |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2). (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in October 2002; January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
28360 |
Region 9 |
Moro Canyon Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Selenium |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
Regional Board Conclusion: 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 four samples exceed the water quality objective for Selenium. 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 four samples exceeded the water quality objective for Selenium and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to [SECTION 3.11/4.11] of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. State Board Review and Conclusion: The Regional Board staff incorrectly assessed selenium as a conventional pollutant and applied table 3.2 of the listing Policy. Selenium is a toxicant and should be assessed using Table 3.1 . State Water Board staff has corrected this error and revised the recommendation to List for selenium. The revised recommendation is as follows: 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. Four of the four samples exceed the water quality objective for selenium. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for 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 four samples exceeded the water quality objective for selenium and this exceeds the allowable frequency under Section 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
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 it cannot be determined if applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the following changes to the decision: The water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26195 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Selenium | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | All four samples collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2) (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182) showed excessive selenium concentrations according to results from the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring program. Samples were collected from October 2002 through May 2003. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | CTR Freshwater Chronic (CCC) 5 ug/l. (U.S. EPA, 2000). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2). (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in October 2002; January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control for the chemical analysis portion of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||
DECISION ID |
28295 |
Region 9 |
Moro Canyon Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2010) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list 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. Four of the four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for toxicity. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of 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 four samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for toxicity and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
| State Board Staff Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | Region 9 data was not included in the 2012 Integrated Report so all decisions are carried over from the 2010 listing cycle.
After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26197 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 4 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four samples were collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2) (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182) from October 2002 to May 2003 for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. Selenastrum Capicornutum alga growth test: - All four samples were considered toxic; Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction test: One of the two samples was toxic; Hyalella azteca; None of the two samples was toxic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | According to SWAMP, waters are considered toxic when samples show significant toxicity levels (SWAMP code SL) when compared to a negative control. Significant toxicity is determined when statistical tests result in an alpha of less than 5% and percent control values less than the evaluation threshold. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Moro Canyon Creek 2 Station (901SJMCC2). (Latitude 33.5624, Longitude -117.8182). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in October 2002; January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control of this study was conducted in accordance with the California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | 2002. Quality Assurance Management Plan for the State of California's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, CA | ||||