Value of SWAMP's Statewide Monitoring Programs

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 1st, 2011

One of the key features of probability-based surveys such as the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA) is thei

One of the key features of probability-based surveys such as the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA) is their lack of bias in the selection of sample sites. In the case of the PSA, each sampling location represents a known fraction of California’s stream network. This allows the State to produce statistically sound and cost-effective estimates of the condition of California’s perennial stream network.

Viability assessment for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | July 25th, 2016

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) review the status of listed species under its authority at least every five ye

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) review the status of listed species under its authority at least every five years and determine whether any species should be removed from the list or have its listing status changed. Assessments of the viability of ESA-listed Pacific salmonids were conducted by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center and the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. The information from these assessments is incorporated into the West Coast Region’s status review, and the NMFS West Coast Region will make final determinations about any proposed changes in listing status, taking into account not only biological information (viability assessments) but also threats to the species and ongoing or planned protective efforts. This report from the Southwest Fisheries Science Center covers 10 ESA-listed Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) and Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) that lie wholly or partially in California. In this review, we consider 1) new information relevant to the delineation of ESU/DPS boundaries, and 2) new information on status and trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure and diversity specifically addressed by viability criteria previously developed by Technical Recovery Teams (TRTs). These viability assessments summarize current information (through the 2014–2015 spawning year where available) with respect to the viability criteria developed by the TRTs.  Consequently, the current assessments consider not only changes in populations that have occurred since the 2010 assessments but also the status of populations and ESUs/DPSs in relation to the viability criteria developed by the TRTs. For eight of the ESUs/DPSs (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho Salmon, Central California Coast Coho Salmon, California Coastal Chinook Salmon, Northern California Steelhead, Central California Coast Steelhead, South-central California Steelhead, Southern California Steelhead, and California Central Valley Steelhead) the new information suggests that there has been no change in extinction risk since 2010 viability assessments. For two ESUs (Central Valley Spring-run Chinook Salmon, and Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon) the new information suggests a change in extinction risk. The viability of Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon appears to have improved since the 2010 assessment, but this ESU is far from being viable and is still facing relatively high extinction risk. The viability of Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon has been reduced and the ESU faces greater extinction risk since the 2010 assessment.

Wastewater surveillance for public health

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | January 5th, 2023

Water and Suspended-Sediment Flux Measurements at the Golden Gate, 2016-2017

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | December 1st, 2017

Sediment is an important resource for San Francisco Bay (SFB), in the context of restoration projects, dredging operations, ecosystem health, and contaminant transport an

Sediment is an important resource for San Francisco Bay (SFB), in the context of restoration projects, dredging operations, ecosystem health, and contaminant transport and fate. Understanding the transport and fate of sediment in SFB is important to ecosystem researchers and managers. Previous studies have shown that sediment exchange at the estuary-ocean boundary of SFB (Golden Gate inlet) is the most poorly understood element of the SFB sediment budget, owing to logistical challenges that inhibit routine field observations, and the fact that net flux is a small fraction of the instantaneous peak values experienced on a daily basis. Improved understanding of sediment exchange at the estuary-ocean boundary of SFB is essential to updating SFB-wide sediment budgets, which account for sources, sinks, and storage of sediment (and sediment-associated contaminants). In this study, field observations of water and suspended-sediment fluxes at the Golden Gate were made over one ebb tide and one flood tide on three occasions: 1) 21-22 March 2016, following a large storm event that triggered the first flow into Yolo Bypass flood control structure since 2011 2) 23 June of 2016, during a period of low freshwater inflow; 3) 27-28 February 2017, following several large storms of the wettest winter in northern California in recorded history.

Water Column Selenium Concentrations in the San Francisco Bay-Delta: Recent Data and Recommendations for Future Monitoring

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | August 1st, 2017

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board developed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and implementation plan for selenium in North San Francisco Bay (NSFB) in 2015.1 T

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board developed a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and implementation plan for selenium in North San Francisco Bay (NSFB) in 2015.1 The TMDL is based on attainment of water column and fish tissue target concentrations protective of human health, aquatic life, and wildlife, and was approved by the US Environmental Protection Agency in August, 2016. Analyses in support of the TMDL synthesized the results of different monitoring efforts to characterize selenium concentrations in water and biota in the Estuary. For water quality evaluation in the TMDL, the sources of observational data included studies of selenium speciation across the estuarine salinity gradient, performed in 1999-2000 and again in 2010 and 2012 (Cutter and Cutter 2004, Doblin et al. 2006, Tetra Tech, 2012), as well as samples collected by the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). Changes in wastewater treatment from the five major refineries in NSFB were implemented in the late 1990s, leading to significant reductions in selenium loads. Data at Estuary center-line locations showed small changes for dissolved selenium in the mid-salinity range and no trends in particulate selenium (Baginska, 2015). As part of the TMDL, water quality modeling analyses were performed to characterize NSFB selenium concentrations under a range of hydrologic conditions and changing point-source loads (Baginska, 2015). Water column selenium concentration data in the NSFB and Delta continue to be collected at selected locations, although these data have not been systematically evaluated following the analyses presented in the TMDL reports. In the near term, possible changes that may cause selenium concentrations to change in the NSFB and Delta include concentration changes in the inflow from the San Joaquin River basin, changes in refinery inputs, changes in stormwater and tributary loads from the Bay margin, and changes in overall Central Valley hydrological conditions, such as the extreme wet and dry periods that occurred between 2012 and 2017. Other drivers, such as nutrient concentrations and algal levels, may also play a role, especially on the concentrations of selenium on particulates.

Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | July 25th, 2006

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of

One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of California’s surface waters?” Often-raised questions relating to the condition of our waters include, “Is the water safe to drink?” “Are the waters safe to swim?” “Are the fish safe to eat?” “Is aquatic life healthy?” The condition assessments presented in this report focus on two waterbody types: coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams. The assessments in this report focus on the question “Is aquatic life healthy?” The “aquatic life” use designation in California’s water quality control plans refers to the beneficial uses of waters that support either warm-water or cold-water ecosystems, including fish, wildlife, invertebrates, vegetation, and other components of aquatic ecosystems. While historical assessments of water quality have primarily focused on describing chemical water quality, this report includes assessments based on biological indicators when available. This report includes assessments of the condition of coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams statewide based on data collected through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). These statewide assessments represent the state’s initial attempt to make broad statistical estimates of the conditions of these waterbody types. It establishes baselines against which to compare future assessments. All the statewide assessments based on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program datasets have known levels of certainty. These confidence intervals are not included in this report but are available in the technical reports cited. The statewide assessments rely on data from a survey design that generates statistically defensible, unbiased assessments of the conditions of these waterbody types. As such, they did not specifically focus on areas of high impact. Other sampling, which has targeted such areas have shown toxicity and elevated chemical levels in some areas. In addition, only a limited set of indicators were used for the assessments. These indicators are specified in each section. The federal Clean Water Act’s Section 305b requires each state to report on the quality condition of its waters. The California State Water Board submits its water quality condition assessment report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The reports submitted by states serve as the basis for U.S. EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress. The Inventory Report is the primary report for the public about the condition of the nation’s waters. The report is also used to inform water quality management decisions, including the allocation of certain Clean Water Act funds among states. However, key reviews of national and state monitoring and assessment efforts suggest that the National Water Quality Inventory Report does not accurately portray water quality conditions, that the monitoring done by states does not always allow for valid assessments of water quality condition in unmonitored waters, and that a consistent approach to monitoring and data collection is needed to support core water programs (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000; National Research Council, 2001).  As a result, the information provided on the status and trends of waters at statewide and at national scales may be inadequate to support decision making. The water quality condition assessment reports submitted thus far by California have been based on a regional approach to reporting. The approach corresponds to the structure of the nine California Regional Water Boards and provides essential information for specific waterbodies. However, the assessments cannot be successfully integrated into an accurate statewide report because regions use a variety of assessment approaches and do not always apply criteria consistently. Also, due to limited resources, monitoring has generally focused on problem identification. Clean waters were less likely to be targeted for monitoring, and assessments were based on data with a bias towards sites that were likely sampled due to suspected problems. Furthermore, assessments could not be extrapolated to unmonitored waterbodies or those with insufficient data. That there is no current way to develop a valid national picture of water quality condition speaks both to the monitoring and assessment challenges faced by states as well as the need for improved assessment tools. The California Water Boards have actively taken steps to meet these challenges. The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy describes some of these steps (A comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy to protect and restore California’s water quality.  Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 2005. [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/reports.html]). As part of the strategy, SWAMP has partnered with U.S. EPA on large-scale monitoring efforts through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program October 2006 Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006: California Water Quality Condition Assessment Report effort relies on a statistical monitoring approach that allows assessments of the condition of waters to be extrapolated to unmonitored areas. For 2006, U.S. EPA has agreed that California can use a different format to submit and meet its Clean Water Act Section 305b reporting requirements. This report would include assessments based on an evaluation of California data collected under U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The assessments apply to two waterbody types: (1) coastal bays and estuaries and (2) wadeable perennial streams. “Wadeable” streams are streams, creeks, and small rivers that are shallow enough to sample without boats. The assessments focus on one beneficial use (aquatic life use) and are based on a limited suite of key indicators. Specifically, the report had to include sections summarizing: • Statewide assessments of coastal bays and estuaries based on California data collected as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Coastal Waters. • Statewide assessments of wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in California as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. • Assessments of northern and southern coastal California’s wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in these areas as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters. When available, assessments from large-scale regional monitoring efforts such as the Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network, the Southern California Bight Project, and the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program have been included. Specifically, more detailed assessments of the San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast, and the Southern California Bight areas are included as part of the coastal waters assessment. More detailed assessments of the Santa Clara River Watershed in Southern California and waters in the Central Coast region are included as part of the wadeable perennial streams assessment. Brief summaries of the Regional Water Boards’ surface water ambient monitoring programs are included in the final section of this report.

Water Quality Conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun and San Pablo Bays during 2009

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 28th, 2010

This report summarizes the results of water quality monitoring and special  studies conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) within the Sacramento-San Joa

This report summarizes the results of water quality monitoring and special  studies conducted by the Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP) within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun and San Pablo bays (the upper San Francisco estuary) during calendar year 2009. This monitoring is mandated by Water Right Decision 1641 (D-1641) and this report is being submitted to fulfill the reporting requirements of this decision. The EMP monitored water quality using a protocol implemented in 1996. Under this monitoring protocol, 13 sampling sites—2 of which were added after 1996—representing 8 regions of the upper San Francisco estuary (estuary) were monitored for 15 physical and chemical water quality parameters. The results gathered from the sampling of these 15 parameters are described in this report. Parameters such as water temperature, Secchi disk depth, dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, specific conductance, dissolved inorganic nitrogen, orthophosphate, and volatile suspended solids were within their historical range. Measured parameters exhibited seasonal variation as well as changes in response to significant rainfall events and in flow rates. In addition to monitoring physical and chemical water quality parameters, biological sampling was conducted to monitor the productivity and community composition of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic communities.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) | March 1st, 2016

The objective of this Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Central

The objective of this Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, is to show how the quality of the surface and ground waters in the Central Coast Region should be managed to provide the highest water quality reasonably possible. Water uses and water benefits vary. Water quality is an important factor in determining use and benefit. For example, drinking water has to be of higher quality than the water used to irrigate pastures. Both are legitimate uses, but the quality requirements for irrigation are different from those for domestic use. The plan recognizes such variations. This Basin Plan lists the various water uses (Beneficial Uses, Chapter Two). Second, it describes the water quality which must be maintained to allow those uses (Water Quality Objectives, Chapter Three). Federal terminology is somewhat different, in that beneficial uses and water quality objectives are combined and the combination is called Water Quality Standards. Chapter Four, the Implementation Plan, then describes the programs, projects, and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this plan. Chapter Five, Plans and Policies, summarizes State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) plans and policies to protect water quality. Chapter Six describes statewide surveillance and monitoring programs as well as regional surveillance and monitoring programs. The Regional Board implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges can affect water quality. These requirements can be either State Waste Discharge Requirements for discharges to land, or federally delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to surface water. Methods of treatment are not specified. When such discharges are managed so that: 1) they meet these requirements; 2) water quality objectives are met; and, 3) beneficial uses are protected, water quality is controlled. The Basin Plan is also implemented by encouraging water users to improve the quality of their water supplies, particularly where the wastewater they discharge is likely to be reused. Public works or other projects which can affect water quality are reviewed and their impacts identified. Proposals which implement or help achieve the goals of the Basin Plan are supported; the Regional Board makes water quality control recommendations for other projects. To check for any updates or amendments since this document was loaded into the library, please visit the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board's basin plan page.

Water Quality Control Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) | September 11th, 2014

The Los Angeles Regional Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Ba

The Los Angeles Regional Board's Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the state's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates (by reference) all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Those of other agencies are referenced in appropriate sections throughout the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan is a resource for the Regional Board and others who use water and/or discharge wastewater in the Los Angeles Region. Other agencies and organizations involved in environmental permitting and resource management activities also use the Basin Plan. Finally the Basin Plan provides valuable information to the public about local water quality issues. The Basin Plan is reviewed and updated as necessary. Following adoption by the Regional Board, the Basin Plan and subsequent amendments are subject to approval by the State Board, the State Office of Administrative Law (OAL), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River region (CA)

Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRRWQCB) | August 16th, 2017

This Water Quality Control Plan (herein referred to as the Basin Plan) for the Colorado River Basin Region was prepared by the California Regional Water Quality Control B

This Water Quality Control Plan (herein referred to as the Basin Plan) for the Colorado River Basin Region was prepared by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region, in accordance with criteria contained in the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Federal Clean Water Act, and other pertinent state and federal rules and regulations. The intent of the Basin Plan is to provide definitive guidelines, and give direction to the full scope of Regional Board activities that serve to optimize the beneficial uses of the state waters within the Colorado River Basin Region of California by preserving and protecting the quality of these waters. Water uses and water benefits vary. Water quality is an important factor in determining use and benefit. For example, drinking water has to be of higher quality than the water used to irrigate pastures. Both of these are beneficial water uses, but the quality requirements for irrigation water are different from those for drinking water. The Basin Plan recognizes the variations of water quality and water uses. This Basin Plan lists and defines the various beneficial water uses  (Chapter 2). It describes the water quality which must be maintained to support such uses (Water Quality Objectives, Chapter 3). The section on implementation (Chapter 4) describes the programs, projects and other actions which are necessary to achieve the standards established in this Plan. Plans, Policies and Issues (Chapter 5), summarize the various plans and policies which protect water quality. This chapter also describes water quality issues which require special attention. Surveillance and Monitoring (Chapter 6), describes activities within the Colorado River Basin Region which are related to surveillance, monitoring, assessment, lab support, quality assurance and quality control. The Regional Board implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements to persons; which can include individuals, communities, or businesses whose waste discharges may affect water quality. These requirements can be either state Waste Discharge Requirements for discharge to land, or federally delegated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for discharges to surface water. Dischargers are required to meet water quality objectives and thus protect beneficial uses. This Basin Plan also encourages water users to improve the quality of their water supplies, particularly where the wastewater they discharge is likely to be reused. Public works and other projects, which can affect water quality, are reviewed and their impacts are identified. Proposals, which implement or help achieve the goals of the Basin Plan, are supported. This Basin Plan is subject to review by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Basin Plan is, in itself, not a final statement on regional water quality planning, but is subject to continuous review and update as necessary. Updated sections of the plan may appear as periodic amendments, which are also subject to approval by the State Board and USEPA.