|
DECISION ID |
16726 |
|
Pollutant: |
Cadmium |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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 three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for Cadmium.
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 three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for Cadmium 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
|
LOE ID: |
7158 |
|
Pollutant: |
Cadmium |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
1 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
One of the three samples taken during storm events in 2007 for the Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern exceed the water quality objective for Cadmium. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, Cadmium water quality objective for maximum freshwater concentration is 4.3 ug/L and continuous freshwater concentration is 2.2 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16727 |
|
Pollutant: |
Chromium (total) |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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 three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for Chromium.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. None of the three samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for Chromium 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16727 |
|
LOE ID: |
7053 |
|
Pollutant: |
Chromium (total) |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
None of the three samples taken during storm events in 2007 for the Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, exceded the water quality objective for Chromium. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the Chromium water quality objective for maximum freshwater concentration is 16 ug/L and continuous freshwater concentration is 11 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16765 |
|
Pollutant: |
Nickel |
Final Listing Decision: |
Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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 lines of evidence are 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 the three samples exceeded the nickel 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff 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. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16765 |
|
LOE ID: |
7155 |
|
Pollutant: |
Nickel |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
0 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
None of the three samples exceed the chronic water quality objectives as outlined in Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, 2007. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the Nickel water quality objective for maximum freshwater concentration is 460 ug/L and continuous freshwater concentration is 52 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16763 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Nonpoint Source | Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. All three of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for copper.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. All three of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for copper, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16763 |
|
LOE ID: |
7052 |
|
Pollutant: |
Copper |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All three samples exceeded the chronic water quality objective for copper. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the Copper water quality objective for maximum freshwater concentration is 14 ug/L and continuous freshwater concentration is 9 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16764 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Nonpoint Source | Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. All three of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for lead.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. All three of the samples exceed the California Toxics Rule water quality objective for lead, and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy.
4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16764 |
|
LOE ID: |
7154 |
|
Pollutant: |
Lead |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
3 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All three samples exceed the chronic water quality objective for lead. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the Lead water quality objective for maximum freshwater concentration is 82 ug/L and continuous freshwater concentration is 3 ug/L (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |
|
DECISION ID |
16766 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
Revision Status |
Revised |
Sources: |
Nonpoint Source | Point Source | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
Expected TMDL Completion Date: |
2021 |
Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: |
Pollutant |
|
Weight of Evidence: |
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. Two of the three samples exceed the Califoria Toxics Rule water quality objective for zinc.
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. Two of the three samples exceed the Califoria Toxics Rule water quality objective for zinc 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. |
|
RWQCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should be placed on the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards are exceeded and a pollutant contributes to or causes the problem. |
|
SWRCB Board Decision / Staff Recommendation: |
|
|
USEPA Decision: |
|
|
|
Lines of Evidence (LOEs) for Decision ID 16766 |
|
LOE ID: |
7156 |
|
Pollutant: |
Zinc |
LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
Matrix: |
Water |
Fraction: |
Total |
|
Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
|
Number of Samples: |
3 |
Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
|
Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Two of three samples exceed the acute and chronic water quality objectives as outlined in Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, 2007. |
Data Reference: |
Monitoring and Modeling of Chollas, Switzer, and Paleta Creek, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. |
|
Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the Lead water quality objective in for maximum and continuous freshwater concentration is 120 ug/L. (U.S. EPA, 2000). |
Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California; Rule. 40 CFR Part 131. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Water Division, San Francisco, CA. |
|
Evaluation Guideline: |
|
Guideline Reference: |
|
Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at 1 monitoring station in Switzer Creek. |
Temporal Representation: |
Samples were collected during 3 storm events in 2006. |
Environmental Conditions: |
Samples were collected during wet weather. |
QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to 40 CFR 136. |
QAPP Information Reference(s): |