| Water Body Name: | Rattlesnake Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9062000020011025132339 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
77548 |
Region 9 |
Rattlesnake Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 5 of 5 samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment 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. 5 of 5 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy, however as required under section 3.9 of the Listing Policy, pollutant(s) could not be directly associated with the Benthic Community Effects. 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: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3325 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 1999 Biological Assessment Annual Report. Physical habitat scores at RC-HP ranged from 62-79, slightly lower, compared to other sampled waterbodies. BMI scores at RC-HP were all near (slightly above or below) average for all sampling months. (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Rattlesnake Creek, 5 riffles adjacent of Hillary Park (RC-HP). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in May, September, and November 1998, and May 1999. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26441 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 5 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples of IBI data were taken from May 1998 to June 2000 at one sampling site. Of the total number of samples, all five samples exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish and Game IBI Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. (SDRWQCB, 1995) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one site: 906RCHPxx on Rattlesnake Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during one to three events over a three year period from May 1998 to June 2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
76973 |
Region 9 |
Rattlesnake Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The one sample collected exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for total dissolved solids. 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. The one sample collected exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for total dissolved solids and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3323 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by RWQCB9 in 1998. One sample was collected and was in exceedance. (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for TDS is 500 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | One sample was collected at Rattlesnake Creek at Hilleary Park, off Community Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 06/03/1998. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68849 |
Region 9 |
Rattlesnake Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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, one line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. The one sample collected did not exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for turbidity. 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. The one sample collected did not exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for turbidity, and this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of five samples is needed for application of Table 3.2. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3324 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Agricultural Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by RWQCB9 in 1998. One sample was collected and was not in exceedance. (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for turbidity is 20 ntu. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Sample was collected at Rattlesnake Creek at Hilleary Park, off Community Road. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | One sample was collected on 06/03/1998. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||