Water Body Name: | Kirker Creek |
Water Body ID: | CAR2073104020080624164244 |
Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
99773 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Trash |
Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (being addressed with action other than TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected Attainment Date: | 2029 |
Implementation Action Other than TMDL: | This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody. |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
6. This trash listing will be addressed by implementing the trash control provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California through the NPDES MS4 permit applicable to this waterbody. |
Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are 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: | 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: | Rapid Trash Assessment (RTA) data collected by the SF Bay Region Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program from 2002-2005 and method description | ||||
A Rapid Trash Assessment Method Applied to Waters of the San Francisco Bay Region:Trash Measurement in Streams | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
77875 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Chlordane | Chrysene (C1-C4) | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Heptachlor epoxide | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene |
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: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 these pollutants. Zero 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. Zero of one sample exceed the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 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. 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: | 28501 | ||||
Pollutant: | Anthracene | Benzo(a)anthracene | Benzo(a)pyrene | Chlordane | Chrysene (C1-C4) | DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) | DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) | DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) | Dieldrin | Endrin | Fluoranthene | Fluorene | Heptachlor epoxide | Lindane/gamma Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-HCH) | Naphthalene | PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) | PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls) | Phenanthrene | Pyrene | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Concentrations of anthracene, fluorene, napthalene, phenanthrene, benz(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthrene, pyrene, PAH (total), PCB (total), chlordane, dieldrin, DDD/DDE/DDT, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, and HCH, gamma in one sediment sample collected in spring 2003 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) Anthracene - 845 ug/kg; Fluorene - 536 ug/kg; Naphthalene - 561 ug/kg;
Phenanthrene -1170 ug/kg; Benz(a)anthracene - 1050 ug/kg; Benzo(a)pyrene - 1450 ug/kg; Chrysene - 1290 ug/kg; Fluoranthene - 2230 ug/kg; Pyrene - 1520 ug/kg; PAH (total) - 22800 ug/kg; PCB (total) - 676 ug/kg; Chlordane - 17.6 ug/kg; Dieldrin - 61.8 ug/kg; DDD (sum op + pp) - 28 ug/kg; DDE (sum op + pp) - 31.3 ug/kg; DDT (sum op + pp) - 62.9 ug/kg; DDT (total) - 572 ug/kg; Endrin - 207 ug/kg; Heptachlor epoxide - 16 ug/kg; HCH, gamma - 4.99 ug/kg. |
||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Kirker Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in April of 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77554 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Zinc |
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: | These pollutants are being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 these pollutants. Zero 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. Zero of one sample exceed the water quality objective, but this sample size is insufficient to determine with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy if standards are not met. A minimum of two samples are needed for application of table 3.1. 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. 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: | 28537 | ||||
Pollutant: | Arsenic | Cadmium | Chromium (total) | Copper | Lead | Mercury | Nickel | Zinc | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc in one sediment sample collected in spring 2003 did not exceed the sediment quality guidelines. | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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. | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | Sediment Quality Guidelines (MacDonald et al., 2000): PEC (probable effect concentration) arsenic - 33 mg/kg dw; cadmium - 4.98 mg/kg dw; chromium - 111 mg/kg dw; copper - 149 mg/kg dw; lead - 128 mg/kg dw; mercury - 1.06 mg/kg dw; nickel - 48.6 mg/kg dw; zinc - 459 mg/kg dw. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 39: 20-31 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | One sediment sample was collected at a "watershed integrator" site located close to the mouth of Kirker Creek. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sediment sample was collected in April of 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): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77852 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
98183 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Twenty-two of twenty-two samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline. Sediment toxicity data are associated with this decision but not available for same time period as sediment chemistry data. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Twenty-two of twenty-two samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not available for the same times and locations of the sediment chemistry. Therefore, a listing decision cannot be made because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient on their own. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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: | 90500 | ||||
Pollutant: | Bifenthrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 22 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 22 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 4 samples were below both the reporting limit (0.1 ug/kg dry weight) and the organic carbon normalized evaluation guideline (0.043 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 22 of 22 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for bifenthrin, 0.043 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.43 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.43 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for bifenthrin from Amweg et al. (2005) and Amweg and Weston (2007). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
76985 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 placing 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 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 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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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 |
98564 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Thirteen of eighteen samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline. Sediment toxicity data are associated with this decision but are not available for the same time periods and locations as sediment chemistry data. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Thirteen of eighteen samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not available for the same times and locations of the sediment chemistry. Therefore, a listing decision cannot be made because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient on their own. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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: | 90503 | ||||
Pollutant: | Cypermethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 18 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 13 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 8 samples were below both the reporting limit (0.1 ug/kg dry weight) and the organic carbon normalized evaluation guideline (0.03 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 13 of 18 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for cypermethrin, 0.03 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.3 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.3 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for cypermethrin from Maund et al. (2002). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Partitioning, bioavailability, and toxicity of the pyrethroid insecticide cypermethrin in sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21:9-15 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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) | ||||
DECISION ID |
76986 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
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: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
99916 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nine of twenty-one samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline. Sediment toxicity data are associated with this decision but are not available for the same time periods and locations as sediment chemistry data. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Nine of twenty-one samples exceed the sediment chemistry guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not available for the same times and locations of the sediment chemistry. Therefore, a listing decision cannot be made because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient on their own. 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. The readily available data and information is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. |
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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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: | 90505 | ||||
Pollutant: | Deltamethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 21 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 5 samples were below both the reporting limit (0.1 ug/kg dry weight) and the organic carbon normalized evaluation guideline (0.079 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 9 of 21 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for deltamethrin, 0.079 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 0.79 ug/g OC). The LC50 (0.79 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for deltamethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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) | ||||
DECISION ID |
87854 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Diazinon |
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: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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: | 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 | ||||
Data collected by the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Years 4 and 5 Assessment | |||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | 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 |
77734 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 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 this pollutant. One out one sample exceeds 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 out of one samples exceeded the water quality objective, but 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. 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: | 28888 | ||||
Pollutant: | Escherichia coli (E. coli) | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
Matrix: | Water | ||||
Fraction: | None | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PATHOGEN MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Samples were collected as part of SWAMP sampling in the summer of 2003 at 7-day intervals and the geometric mean of the samples calculated over a five week interval. The geometric mean for the KIR110 location was 384 MPN/100 mL and exceeded the US EPA criteria. | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, whitewater activities, fishing, and uses of natural hot springs.
Water contact implies a risk of waterborne disease transmission and involves human health; accordingly, criteria required to protect this use are more stringent than those for more casual water-oriented recreation. U.S. EPA water quality criteria for water contact recreation based on the frequency of use a particular area receives - 1986: the E. coli criterion is not to exceed 126 organisms/100 mL. The value is expressed as a 7-day geometric mean based on five or more samples per 30¿day period; designated beach (max) 235 MPN/100 mL. |
||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA440/5-84-002 | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
Guideline Reference: | |||||
Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at KIR110 (Buchanan Park). | ||||
Temporal Representation: | Sample was collected weekly from 7/21/2003 through 8/18/2003. | ||||
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 |
98622 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of twenty-six samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there are no exceedances based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Zero of twenty-six samples exceed the guideline indicating the beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data showed no exceedances. 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90504 | ||||
Pollutant: | Esfenvalerate/Fenvalerate | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 0 of 26 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.15 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate, 0.15 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1.5 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1.5 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for esfenvalerate/fenvalerate from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
98623 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of twenty-six samples exceed the sediment chemistry evaluation guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not attached because there are no sediment chemistry exceedances. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Zero of twenty-six samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is sufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence 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: | 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: | 90501 | ||||
Pollutant: | Fenpropathrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 26 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 0 of 26 exceeded the evaluation guideline (0.12 ug/g OC). | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for fenpropathrin, 0.1 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 1 ug/g OC). The LC50 (1 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for fenpropathrin from Ding et al. (2011). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: I. piperonyl butoxide addition. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 26:2389-2396. | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Pesticides to Chironomus dilutus and Hyalella azteca. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 61:83¿92. | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for Pyrethroid Working Group. | ||||
DECISION ID |
76922 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
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: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
98624 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Permethrin |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.6 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.6 at least two lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status for pollutants in sediment, and pollutant concentrations in sediment must be associated with sediment toxicity to justify adding that pollutant to the CWA section 303(d) List.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Zero of fourteen samples exceed the guideline. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because they are not relevant to this decision because there is insufficient information based on sediment chemistry. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is insufficient justification for placing this water segment-pollutant combination 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. Zero of fourteen samples exceed the guideline and this sample size is insufficient to determine beneficial use support, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using table 3.1. Sediment toxicity data are not associated with this decision because the sediment chemistry data are insufficient. 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: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
LOE ID: | 90502 | ||||
Pollutant: | Permethrin | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Sediment | ||||
Matrix: | Sediment | ||||
Fraction: | Total | ||||
Beneficial Use: | Cold Freshwater Habitat | ||||
Number of Samples: | 14 | ||||
Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | A total of 26 individual sediment samples were collected; 12 samples were below both the reporting limit (1.0 ug/kg dry weight) and the organic carbon normalized evaluation guideline (0.89 ug/g OC) and could not be quantified with the level of certainty required by the listing policy. 0 of 14 samples exceeded the evaluation guideline. | ||||
Data Reference: | Various Data for Pleasant Grove Creek, Del Puerto Creek and Roseville Area, 2006-2010. | ||||
SWAMP Data: | |||||
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The narrative objective for pesticides states, "No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Discharges shall not result in pesticide concentrations in bottom sediments or aquatic life that adversely affect beneficial uses." | ||||
Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
Evaluation Guideline: | The evaluation guideline for permethrin, 0.89 ug/g OC, is one-tenth of the median lethal concentration for H. azteca (LC50; 8.9 ug/g OC). The LC50 (8.9 ug/g OC) is the geometric mean of OC normalized LC50 values for permethrin from Amweg et al. (2005). | ||||
Guideline Reference: | Use and Toxicity of Pyrethroid Pesticides in the Central Valley, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 24:966-972, with erratum 24:No. 5 | ||||
Spatial Representation: | Sediment samples were collected along Kirker Creek at the following station locations in 2006 and 2007: KC1-KC14; Sites KC9 and KC10 were considered the same site (within 200m) according to the Listing Policy. | ||||
Temporal Representation: | The 2006 sediment samples were collected from 05/20/2006 to 05/22/2006; the 2007 sediment samples were collected from 05/12/2007 to 05/14/2007. | ||||
Environmental Conditions: | |||||
QAPP Information: | Submitted QA data are acceptable. | ||||
QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
87906 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Selenium |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 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 placing 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 3.1 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
87907 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Temperature, water |
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: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
87856 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | pH |
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: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of the samples exceed the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. None of six samples exceeded the pH objectives 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. |
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. 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: | 28701 | ||||
Pollutant: | pH | ||||
LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 |
76076 |
Region 2 |
Kirker 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)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
Sources: | A Source Unknown |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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. |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 | ||||
Guideline Reference: | 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 |
77853 |
Region 2 |
Kirker Creek |
||
Pollutant: | Pyrethroids |
Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL)(2016) |
Revision Status | Original |
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 |
Regional Board Conclusion: | 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.
The USEPA final decision was to move this listing to the being addressed by a USEPA approved TMDL portion of the 303(d) list, because the San Francisco Bay Urban Creeks Diazinon TMDL was approved by USEPA on 5/16/07 (USEPA, 2007). |
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. 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: | 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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 | ||||
SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
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: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - San Francisco Bay Region (Region 2) | ||||
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 | ||||