| Water Body Name: | Santa Ysabel Creek (above Sutherland Reservoir) |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9055300020091030161135 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
105161 |
Region 9 |
Santa Ysabel Creek (above Sutherland Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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 |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the CWA 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. The CSCI scores for this site were 1.18, 1.04, 1.08, 1.04, 1.06, 1.00 and 0.91. 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 CWA 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. The CSCI scores for this site were 1.18, 1.04, 1.08, 1.04, 1.06, 1.00 and 0.91. A score of 0.79 or higher is achieved by a stream that is not likely altered or impaired. A water body with a CSCI score of 0.79 or higher and no impairment listings, supports the WARM/COLD beneficial use and will be placed in Category 1 (all core beneficial uses are supported). A water body with a CSCI score of 0.79 or higher and impairment listings (or other evidence of lack of beneficial use support) will be placed in Category 2 (meets some designated beneficial uses). 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: | 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. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 133508 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | BIOLOGICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data used to generate the SWAMP Bioassessment Scores Map. The seven samples collected produced the following CSCI scores: 1.18, 1.04, 1.08, 1.04, 1.06, 1.00 and 0.91. Therefore, it is not exceeding the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Data Reference: | CSCI scores downloaded from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/bioassessment/csci_scores_map.html | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant or animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analysis of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. Region 9 Basin Plan. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) is a biological scoring tool that helps aquatic resource managers translate complex data about benthic macroinvertebrates found living in a stream into an overall measure of stream health. The CSCI score is calculated by comparing the expected condition with actual (observed) results (Rhen, A.C. et al., 2015). CSCI scores range from 0 (highly degraded) to greater than 1 (equivalent to reference). CSCI scoring of biological condition are as follows (per the scientific paper supporting the development of the CSCI scoring tool): greater than or equal to 0.92 = likely intact condition, 0.91 to 0.80 = possibly altered condition, 0.79 to 0.63 = likely altered condition, less than or equal to 0.62 = very likely altered condition. Sites with scores below 0.79 are considered to have exceeded the water quality objective for the aquatic life beneficial use. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Bioassessment in complex environments: designing an index for consistent meaning in different settings | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 905DGSY1x. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 5/3/2010, 6/1/2010, 6/14/2010, 6/29/2010, 7/20/2010, 8/19/2010 and 9/15/2010. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data collected following SWAMP QA protocols. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72209 |
Region 9 |
Santa Ysabel Creek (above Sutherland Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | Ammonia | Manganese | Nickel | Orthophosphate | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | Total Suspended Solids (TSS) |
| 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: | Pollution |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 and 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 these pollutants. None of the 30 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for these multiple pollutants. 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 30 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for these multiple pollutants, and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 and 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. |
| 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: | 30951 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 | Ammonia | Manganese | Nickel | Orthophosphate | Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) | Total Suspended Solids (TSS) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 30 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 30 samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek station 911TLAP04 during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003 for conventional inorganics analyses, none of the 30 samples exceeded evaluation concentrations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Alkalinity as CaCO3 20 mg/l, ammonia as N 0.025 mg/l, nitrite as N 1.mg/l, nitrogen total Kjeldahl (If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used), ortho phosphate as P total 0.05 mg/l, sulfate 250 mg/l, total suspended solids narrative: Waters shall not contain suspended solids in concentrations of solids that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek station 911TLAP04; (Latitude 33.1277, Longitude -116.6790). (Station name seems incorrect. Coordinates show 905YSA04.) | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality controls for chemical analyses were conducted in accordance with the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
86643 |
Region 9 |
Santa Ysabel Creek (above Sutherland Reservoir) |
||
| Pollutant: | Metals |
| 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: | Pollution |
| 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.
These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess these pollutants. None of the 33 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objectives for these metal pollutants. 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 33 samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objectives for these metal pollutants 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. |
| 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 applicable water quality standards are not being exceeded. |
| 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: | 30954 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Metals | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Not Recorded | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 33 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 33 samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek station 905SDYSA4 during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003 for metals analyses, none of the 33 samples exceeded evaluation concentrations (SWAMP, 2007). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for aluminum is 1. mg /l (ppb). Water Quality Control for the San Diego Basin. 2007. The dissolved chronic criterion for the following metals applies: arsenic 150 µg/l (ppb), cadmium 2.2 µg/l (ppb), copper 9.0 µg/l (ppb), selenium 5.0 µg/l (ppb), zinc 120 µg/l (ppb), chromium 11 µg/l (ppb), manganese 0.05 mg/l, nickel 52 µg/l (ppb), lead 2.5 µg/l (ppb), and silver 3.4µg/l (ppb). California Toxics Rule. 2007. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Water samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek station 905SDYSA4; (Latitude 33.1276, Longitude -116.6791). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected during the months of January 2003, April 2003, and May 2003. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality controls for chemical analyses were conducted in accordance with the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
72526 |
Region 9 |
Santa Ysabel Creek (above Sutherland Reservoir) |
||
| 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)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A 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 3.1 and 3.9 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 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. Five of the eight samples exceed the 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. Five of the eight samples exceed the 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 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: | 30961 | ||||
| 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: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five samples of IBI data were taken from June 2000 to June 2005 at two sampling sites. Of the total number of samples, four of the 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 two sites: 905SYCH79 and 905WE0679 on Santa Ysabel Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during one to two events every other year from June 2000 to June 2005. | ||||
| 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 | ||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30958 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 2 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Two samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek station 905SDYSA4 in January and April 2003, they showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the following tests: Hyalella azteca survival and growth- None of the two samples were toxic. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, 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: | Sediment samples were collected at a station on Santa Ysabel Creek 4 (905SDYSA4). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sample from Santa Ysabel Creek were collected on January 2003 and April 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): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 30957 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 6 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Six samples were collected at Santa Ysabel Creek stations 905SDYSA4 and 905SDYSA7 from January to May 2003, they showed significant toxicity levels (SL) in the following tests: Selenastrum algae growth test - five of the six samples. Ceriodaphnia dubia survival/reproductive test - two of the six samples. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Monitoring data for Region 9 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, 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 a station on Santa Ysabel Creek 4 (905SDYSA4) and Santa Ysabel Creek 4 (905SDYSA7). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Water samples from Santa Ysabel Creek were collected on 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): | |||||