| |
DECISION ID |
16978 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Crop-Related Sources | Nonpoint Source | Nurseries | 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. Seven of eight of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for chlorpyrifos.
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. Seven of eight of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for chlorpyrifos, 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: |
|
| |
| |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7467 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Chlorpyrifos |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
8 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
7 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Four out of four wet weather samples collected exceed the water quality objective of 0.025 ug/L. Three out of four dry weather samples exceed 0.014 ug/L according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments or biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses. Pesticides shall not be present at levels which will bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels which are harmful to human health, wildlife or aquatic organisms (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
The 4-day average concentration of chlorpyrifos in freshwater is 0.014 ug/L. The 1-hour average concentration of chlorpyrifos in freshwater is 0.025 ug/L according to Siepmann and Finlayson, 2000; Finlayson, 2004. |
| Guideline Reference: |
Water quality criteria for diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Administrative Report 00-3. Rancho Cordova, CA: Pesticide Investigations Unit, Office of Spills and Response. CA Department of Fish and Game |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to five samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16979 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 eight of the samples exceed the California Toxic 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. Two of eight of the samples exceed the California Toxic 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 16979 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7468 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Copper |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
Dissolved |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
8 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Two out of four wet weather samples collected exceed the water quality objective for the 1-hour average concentration of copper. None of four dry weather samples collected exceeds the water quality objective for the 4-day average concentration of copper according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the CTR, the dissolved copper chronic criterion is 3.1 ppb and the acute criterion is 4.8 ppb, but these criteria may vary depending upon hardness of the sample (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 Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to five samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16980 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Nonpoint Source | Point Source | 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 lines of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Two of eight of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Dianzinon.
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. Two of eight of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Dianzinon, 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 16980 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7469 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Diazinon |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
8 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
2 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Two out of eight samples collected exceed the water quality objective; these two exceedances occurred within a one year period according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in the water column, sediments of biota at concentration(s) that adversely affect beneficial uses. Pesticides shall not be present at levels which will bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms to levels which are harmful to human health, wildlife or aquatic organism (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
The one-hour average concentration of diazinon should not exceed 0.17 µg/L more than once every three years on the average (acute criterion) and the four-day average concentration of diazinon should not exceed 0.17 µg/L more than once every three years on the average (chronic criterion). (U.S. EPA, 2006) |
| Guideline Reference: |
Fact Sheet: Final Recommended Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Diazinon. |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to five samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16994 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Esherichia coli.
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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Esherichia coli and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16994 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7466 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Escherichia coli (E. Coli) |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Water Contact Recreation |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
7 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
7 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All seven samples collected exceed the water quality objective according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
The maximum E. coli level for moderately or lightly used areas is 406 colonies per 100 ml (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to four samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, two dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16995 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Fecal Coliform |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for fecal coliform.
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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for fecal coliform, and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16995 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7465 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Fecal Coliform |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
7 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
7 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All seven samples collected exceed the water quality objective according to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. . |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan, no more than 10% of the samples during any 30-day period for waters designated for contact recreation shall exceed 400 per 100 ml (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to four samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, two dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16977 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Iron |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Natural Sources | Source Unknown |
| 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. Five of six of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for iron.
Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification in favor of placing this water segment-pollutant combination on the section 303(d) list in the Water Quality Limited Segments category.
This conclusion is based on the staff findings that:
1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy.
2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy.
3. Five of six of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for iron, 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 16977 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7470 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Iron |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
5 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Five out of six samples collected exceed the water quality objective according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006, Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan, inland surface waters designated as domestic or municipal supply, shall not contain concentrations of iron in excess of the secondary maximum contaminant level 0.3 mg/L (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Two to four samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16981 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Manganese |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Six of six of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for manganese.
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. Six of six of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for manganese, and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16981 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7471 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Manganese |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
6 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
6 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All six samples collected exceed the water quality objective according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan, inland surface waters designated as domestic or municipal supply shall not contain concentrations of manganese in excess of the secondary maximum contaminant level 0.05 mg/L (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Two to four samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16989 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Six of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for nitrogen.
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. Six of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for nitrogen, and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16989 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7473 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Nitrogen as N |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
7 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
6 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Six out of seven samples collected exceed the evaluation guideline of 1 mg/L according to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
A desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters appears to be 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus, P. These values are not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time unless studies of the specific water body in question clearly show that water quality objective changes are permissible and changes are approved by the Regional Board. Analogous threshold values have not been set for nitrogen compounds; however, natural ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus are to be determined by surveillance and monitoring and upheld. If data are lacking, a ratio of N:P = 10:1, on a weight to weight basis shall be used (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to five samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples collected in July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16991 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosphorus.
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. Seven of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosphorus, and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16991 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7474 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Phosphorus |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Warm Freshwater Habitat |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
7 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
7 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
All seven samples collected exceed the evaluation guideline according to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
Water bodies shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses (RWQCB, 2007).
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin has a goal of 0.1 mg/L for total phosphorus in streams and other flowing waters (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Three to five samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples collected in July 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |
| |
DECISION ID |
16992 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: |
List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: |
New Decision |
| Revision Status |
Original |
| Sources: |
Source Unknown |
| 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 3.2 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. Six of nine of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for total dissolved solids.
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. Six of nine of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for total dissolved solids and this exceeds 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. |
| |
| 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 16992 |
| |
| LOE ID: |
7472 |
| |
| Pollutant: |
Total Dissolved Solids |
| LOE Subgroup: |
Pollutant-Water |
| Matrix: |
Water |
| Fraction: |
None |
| |
| Beneficial Use: |
Municipal & Domestic Supply |
| |
| Number of Samples: |
9 |
| Number of Exceedances: |
6 |
| |
| Data and Information Type: |
Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) |
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: |
Six out of nine samples collected exceed the water quality objective according to results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Data Reference: |
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 and 2005.
Watershed Annual Progress Report 2005 and 2006.
|
| |
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: |
From the Basin Plan, inland surface waters designated as domestic or municipal supply, shall not contain concentrations of iron in excess of the secondary maximum contaminant level 0.3 mg/L (RWQCB, 2007). |
| Objective/Criterion Reference: |
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). |
| |
| Evaluation Guideline: |
|
| Guideline Reference: |
| |
| Spatial Representation: |
Samples were collected at Redhawk Channel downstream of Overland Dr. Lat/long: 33°2834.6 N/117°0540.8 W. |
| Temporal Representation: |
Two to four samples were collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through February 2006. |
| Environmental Conditions: |
One sample represents the first storm event of each monitoring year that produces sufficient flow to collect a composite sample. In addition, another sample is collected during the monitoring year to represent a wet weather event. Two dry sampling events are also required each monitoring year; however, three dry events were monitored in the 2004-2005 monitoring year and only one dry event in the 2005-2006 monitoring year due to low flow. |
| QAPP Information: |
QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. |
| QAPP Information Reference(s): |