| Water Body Name: | Clipper Yacht Club (part of Richardson Bay) |
| Water Body ID: | CAB2032002020110405212213 |
| Water Body Type: | Bay & Harbor |
DECISION ID |
94833 |
Region 2 |
Clipper Yacht Club (part of Richardson Bay) |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| 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 3.1 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. Zero of three samples exceed the 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 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 three samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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: | 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: | 91267 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the three samples exceeded the SSO value of 6 ug/L for dissolved copper. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Table 3.3A lists a site specific objective (SSO) for criteria continuous concentration of dissolved copper. The SSO for dissolved copper for central San Francisco Bay is 6.0 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | A total of four separate grab samples were collected from inside the marina basin (Sites 1, 2, 3, & 4), these sites were averaged per sample event. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during the dry season only. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/qapp_study236.pdf) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
94834 |
Region 2 |
Clipper Yacht Club (part of Richardson Bay) |
||
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of twelve samples exceed the 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 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 twelve samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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: | 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: | 90759 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 12 minimum samples of Dissolved Oxygen concentrations had no exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The dissolved oxygen content of bays/estuaries downstream of the Carquinez Bridge must be above 5 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following stations: Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.2 Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.3 Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.2 Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.3 Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.2 Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.3 Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.2 Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.3 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on the following dates: 7/27/2006 8/25/2006 9/19/2006 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Study report on paint data collected in California Marinas. | ||||
DECISION ID |
94835 |
Region 2 |
Clipper Yacht Club (part of Richardson Bay) |
||
| Pollutant: | 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 CWA 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. Zero of three samples exceed the 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 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 three samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 16 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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: | 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: | 91269 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Zinc | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Nuisance | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 3 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical (conventional plus toxic pollutants) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | None of the three samples exceeded the CTR value of 81 ug/L for dissolved zinc in brackish water. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Waters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. California Toxics Rule (CTR) lists criterion continuous concentrations to protect aquatic life in saline water. The CTR value is 81 ug/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | A total of four separate grab samples were collected from inside the marina basin (Sites 1, 2, 3, & 4), these sites were averaged per sample event. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on three separate sampling events during the dry season (July - October) in 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Samples were collected during the dry season only. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan that was prepared per State Water Resources Control Board Agreement No. 05-218-250 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. (Available online at http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/protocols/qapp_study236.pdf) | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
94891 |
Region 2 |
Clipper Yacht Club (part of Richardson Bay) |
||
| 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 CWA 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. Zero of twelve samples exceed the 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 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 twelve samples exceed the objective and this sample size is insufficient to determine, with the power and confidence of the Listing Policy, the applicable beneficial use support rating. A minimum of 26 samples is needed to determine if a beneficial use is fully supported using 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: | 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: | 91268 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Estuarine Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 12 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Numeric data generated from 12 minimums and maximums had no exceedences. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in California Marinas, 2006. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the following stations: Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.2* Clipper Yacht Harbor 1.3* Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.2* Clipper Yacht Harbor 2.3 Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.2* Clipper Yacht Harbor 3.3 Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.1 Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.2* Clipper Yacht Harbor 4.3 | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected once a month from July 2006 to September 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||