| Water Body Name: | Temecula Creek |
| Water Body ID: | CAR9025100020011025111323 |
| Water Body Type: | River & Stream |
DECISION ID |
76288 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen |
| Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Reason for Delisting: | Flaws in original listing |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for removal from the CWA section 303(d) List under section 4.1 of the Listing Policy. Under this section a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. Nineteen of the 160 samples exceed the objective and, although this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy, the quality of data is uncertain (QA information missing) and the data are old (1999-2002). Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification for removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the CWA section 303(d) List. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used does not satisfy the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy (QA information not available). 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. Although 19 of 160 samples exceeded the objective and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 4.1 of the Listing Policy, the data are of uncertain quality and relatively old. 4. Pursuant to section 4.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3159 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Nitrogen | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 160 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 19 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Ranch California Water District from 1999 to 2002. Nineteen of 160 samples were in exceedance (RCWD, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters, enclosed bays and estuaries, coastal lagoons, and ground waters and all beneficial uses, 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. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 4-5 times per month from 03/1999 to 04/2002 | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69685 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not Delist from 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.1 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.1 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess pollutant. One-hundred forty-eight of 169 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 against removing this water segment-pollutant combination from the section 303(d) list. This conclusion is based on the staff findings that: 1. The data used satisfies the data quality requirements of section 6.1.4 of the Policy. 2. The data used satisfies the data quantity requirements of section 6.1.5 of the Policy. 3. One-hundred forty-eight of 169 samples exceeded the Basin Plan water quality objective for phosphorus and this exceeds the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3158 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 160 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 139 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by the Rancho California Water District in 1999-2002. There were 139 of 160 samples that were in exceedance (RCWD, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters - streams and other flowing waters
and all beneficial uses, the WQO for total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L. This appears to be desired goal in order to prevent plant nuisance in streams and other flowing waters; not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time. |
||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Use 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. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 4-5 times per month from 03/31/1999 to 04/17/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 77113 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Phosphorus | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 9 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | 9 of 9 samples exceed the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus for Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Table 3-2 of the San Diego Basin Plan states that the water quality objective for Total Phosphorus for Temecula Creek is 0.1 mg/L. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at 777 (Temecula Creek). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected from 10/16/2007 to 5/21/2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No quality assurance information was provided. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
77077 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects |
| 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: | Benthic Community Effects is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under sections 3.9 and 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.9, an additional line of evidence associating the Benthic Community Effects with a water or sediment concentration of pollutants is necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this indicator. 4 of 7 samples exceeded the water quality objective. Based on the readily available data and information, the weight of evidence indicates that there is sufficient justification against placing Benthic Community Effects in this water segment 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. 4 of 7 samples exceeded the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) value of "poor" water quality for this area and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3157 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Population/Community Degradation | ||||
| Matrix: | Not Specified | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 0 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected for the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 1999 Biological Assessment Annual Report. Physical habitat scores at TC-I-15 ranged from 109 to 136, higher scores compared to other sampled waterbodies. BMI scores at TC-I-15 were either slightly above or slightly below average, compared to other sampled waterbodies. (SDRWQCB, 1999A). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | |||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | |||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek, 5 riffles immediately downstream of I-15 (TC-I-15). | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected in May, September, November 1998 and May 1999. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 26472 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Benthic Community Effects | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Adverse Biological Responses | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven samples of IBI data were taken from May 1998 to November 2000 at one sampling site. Of the total number of samples, four samples exceeded the IBI impairment threshold. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Fish and Game IBI Data | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the San Diego Basin Plan the objective is: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration, or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. (SDRWQCB, 1995) | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is an analytical tool that can be used to assess the biological and physical condition of streams and rivers within a zero to one hundred scoring range: Very Poor 0-19, Poor 20-39, Fair 40-59, Good 60- 79, Very Good 80-100. The IBI score of 39 was set as an impairment threshold because it is a statistical criterion of two standard deviations below the mean reference site score which defines the boundary between 'fair' and 'poor' IBI creek conditions. (Ode, p. 9) | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | A Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management. Volume 35, number 1 (2005): pp. 1-13 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at one site: 902TCI15x on Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Sampling occurred during two to three events from May 1998 to November 2000. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality Control for collection and identification was conducted in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure and the State of California, California Monitoring an Assessment Program: "CMAP", Quality Assurance Project Plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Quality Assurance Project Plan for the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | State of California, California Monitoring and Assessment Program: "CMAP". | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | The San Diego Stream Team Quality Assurance Project Plan | ||||
DECISION ID |
68838 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Boron |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 160 of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Boron. 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 160 of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for Boron and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.1 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3161 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Boron | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 160 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Rancho California Water District from 1999 to 2002. None of the 160 samples were in exceedance (RCWD, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for boron is 0.75 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 4-5 times per month from 03/31/1999 to 04/17/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81654 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the CWA section 303(d) List under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single lines of evidence are necessary to assess listing status.
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One of the seven 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. One of seven samples exceeded 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: | 77111 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Oxygen, Dissolved | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | One of 7 samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | Dissolved oxygen levels shall not be less than 5.0 mg/l in inland surface waters with designated MAR or WARM beneficial uses. The annual mean dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 7 mg/l more than 10% of the time. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Temecula Creek station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected seven times between 2007 and 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
68837 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Surfactants (MBAS) |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
This pollutant is being considered for placement on the section 303(d) list under section 3.2 of the Listing Policy. Under section 3.2 a single line of evidence is necessary to assess listing status. One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. None of 160 of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for surfactants. 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 160 of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for surfactants and this does not exceed the allowable frequency listed in Table 3.2 of the Listing Policy. 4. Pursuant to section 3.11 of the Listing Policy, no additional data and information are available indicating that standards are not met. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3160 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Surfactants (MBAS) | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 160 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Rancho California Water District from 1999 to 2002. None of the 160 samples were in exceedance (RCWD, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for MBAS is 0.5 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 4-5 times per month from 03/31/1999 to 04/17/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
73362 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity |
| 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: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
One line of evidence is available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. A single sample was collected and it did not exceed the Basin Plan criteria, but the number of samples is insufficient to determine with the confidence and power required by the Listing Policy. 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3156 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Turbidity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by RWQCB 9 in 1998. One sample was collected and was not in exceedance (SWRCB, 2003). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters with a municipal beneficial use, the WQO for turbidity is 5.0 ntu. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected Temecula Creek east of the confluence, west of I-15. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 06/09/1998. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
81604 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | pH |
| Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | Do Not List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for placement on the 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 the eight 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 eight samples exceeded 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: | 77112 | ||||
| Pollutant: | pH | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 0 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Zero of 8 samples exceeded the objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The pH of all inland surface waters shall not be depressed below 6.5 or raised above 8.5 as a result of waste discharges. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected from the Temecula Creek station. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Eight samples were between 2007 and 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | NPDES quality assurance. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
76531 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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 nine 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 nine 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 6462 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Chlorpyrifos | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 9 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 7 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven 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 May 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| 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 Temecula Creek below Pala Road, lat/long: 33°28¿26.4¿ N/117°07¿46.1¿ W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Four to six samples are collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through May 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, three samples represent wet weather and two samples represent dry weather. However, one sampling event in the 2004-2005 monitoring year did not analyze for all constituents. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
76446 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Copper |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown | Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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. Four of eight of the samples exceed the CTR 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. Four of eight of the samples exceed the CTR 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 6515 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Copper | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 8 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of eight samples exceeded the warm freshwater habitat water quality objective for Copper from results in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation annual progress reports from 2005 and 2006. The eight samples were collected between October 2004 and May 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 Temecula Creek below Pala Road, lat/long: 33°28¿26.4¿ N/117°07¿46.1¿ W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Four to six samples are collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through May 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, three samples represent wet weather and two samples represent dry weather. However, one sampling event in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 monitoring years did not analyze for all constituents. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
75428 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Indicator Bacteria |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2025 |
| 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.
Four lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. With the latest data, 7 of 7 and 9 of 14 singles samples exceed the water quality objectives for E. Coli of 235/100ml and fecal coliform of 400/100ml for the protection of REC-1. 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 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. With the latest data, 7 of 7 and 9 of 14 singles samples exceed the water quality objectives for E. Coli of 235/100ml and fecal coliform of 400/100ml for the protection of REC-1 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. |
| Regional Board Decision 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. |
| 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: | 7403 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four out of 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 May 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek below Pala Road, lat/long: 33°28¿26.4¿ N/117°07¿46.1¿ W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Four samples are collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through May 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, three samples represent wet weather and two samples represent dry weather. However, one sampling event in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 monitoring year did not analyze for all constituents. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 72783 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Fecal Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 5 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Five of the seven samples exceeded the fecal Coliform objectivec | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The Fecal Coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 400/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between October 2007 and May 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7152 | ||||
| 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: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Fixed station physical/chemical monitoring (conventional pollutants only) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four out of 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 May 2006. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek below Pala Road, lat/long: 33°28¿26.4¿ N/117°07¿46.1¿ W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Four samples are collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through May 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, three samples represent wet weather and two samples represent dry weather. However, one sampling event in both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 monitoring year did not analyze for all constituents. | ||||
| QAPP Information: | QA/QC conducted according to Federal Regulations under requirements of a NPDES permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 72782 | ||||
| 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: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Seven of the seven samples exceeded the E. coli objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | The E.Coli concentration shall not exceed more than 235/100 ml. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between October 2007 and May 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 72784 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Coliform | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Water Contact Recreation | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 4 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Not Specified | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Four of the seven samples exceeded the total coliform objective. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Data for Various Pollutants in Riverside County, 2007-2009. | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Basin Plan for the San Diego Basin. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | The total coliform concentration shall not exceed more than 10000/100 ml. Guidance For Fresh Water Beaches (CDPH). | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Draft Guidance for Fresh Water Beaches. Last Update: May 8, 2006. Initial Draft: November 1997. California Department of Public Health. | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | The samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected between October 2007 and May 2009. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | No QAPP was submitted. Sampling was done by municipalities in Riverside County pursuant to the Riverside County Municipal Stormwater Permit. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
69027 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2019 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | The decision has not changed from the previous listing cycle. No new data were assessed for the current listing cycle. Therefore, the previous conclusion remains unchanged, and is as follows:
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. Two lines of evidence are available in the administrative record to assess this pollutant. One hundred fifty-seven of the 161 samples exceed the water quality objective. 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. One hundred fifty-seven of the 161 samples exceed the Basin Plan objective, 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | This is a decision previously approved by the State Water Resources Control Board and the USEPA. No new data were assessed by the Regional Board for the current cycle. The decision has not changed. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3155 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 160 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 156 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by Rancho California Water District from 1999 to 2002. There were 156 of 160 samples that were in exceedance (RCWD, 2002). | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for TDS is 500 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected 4-5 times per month from 03/31/1999 to 04/17/2002. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | QA Info Missing | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 3154 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Total Dissolved Solids | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Pollutant-Water | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | Total Dissolved | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Municipal & Domestic Supply | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 1 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 1 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL MONITORING | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Data were collected by RWQCB9 in 1998. One sample was collected and was in exceedance. | ||||
| Data Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan: For inland surface waters and all beneficial uses, the WQO for TDS is 500 mg/L. This concentration is not to be exceeded more than 10% of the time during any one year period. | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Placeholder reference 2006 303(d) | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | |||||
| Guideline Reference: | |||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek east of the confluence, west of I-15. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Samples were collected on 06/09/1998. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | |||||
| QAPP Information: | Data used in 2002 assessment. QA=? | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | |||||
DECISION ID |
76127 |
Region 9 |
Temecula Creek |
||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity |
| Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list) |
| Last Listing Cycle's Final Listing Decision: | List on 303(d) list (TMDL required list)(2016) |
| Revision Status | Original |
| Sources: | A Source Unknown |
| Expected TMDL Completion Date: | 2021 |
| Impairment from Pollutant or Pollution: | Pollutant |
| Regional Board Conclusion: | This pollutant is being considered for 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. Three of seven of the samples exceed the water quality objective for toxicity. 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. Three of seven of the samples exceed the Basin Plan water quality objective for toxicity 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. |
| Regional Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of the available data and information, RWQCB staff concludes that the water body-pollutant combination should not be removed from the section 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are being exceeded. |
| State Board Review of Regional Board Conclusion and Recommendation: | |
| State Board Decision Recommendation: | After review of this Regional Board decision, SWRCB staff recommend the decision be approved by the State Board. |
|
|||||
| LOE ID: | 7511 | ||||
| Pollutant: | Toxicity | ||||
| LOE Subgroup: | Toxicity | ||||
| Matrix: | Water | ||||
| Fraction: | None | ||||
| Beneficial Use: | Warm Freshwater Habitat | ||||
| Number of Samples: | 7 | ||||
| Number of Exceedances: | 3 | ||||
| Data and Information Type: | Ambient toxicity testing (chronic) | ||||
| Data Used to Assess Water Quality: | Hyalella Azteca-
Three out of seven samples were found to have acute toxicity by the Hyalella Azteca growth/survival test. Selenastrum capricornutum- None of seven samples were found to have toxicity by the green alage, Selenastrum capricornutum, growth test. Toxicity results were in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District annual progress report from 2005 and 2006. Samples were collected from October 2004 through March 2006. |
||||
| Data Reference: | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||
| SWAMP Data: | Non-SWAMP | ||||
| Water Quality Objective/Criterion: | From the Basin Plan, all waters shall be free of toxic substances that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (RWQCB, 2007). | ||||
| Objective/Criterion Reference: | Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin | ||||
| Evaluation Guideline: | Samples were found to exhibit toxicity when the No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) or median lethal concentration (LC50) for any given species was estimated to be less than 100% of the test sample concentration. | ||||
| Guideline Reference: | Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Urban Runoff From the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Draining the Watersheds of the County of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport. Order No. R9-2007-0001 | ||||
| Spatial Representation: | Samples were collected at Temecula Creek below Pala Road, lat/long: 33°28¿26.4¿ N/117°07¿46.1¿ W. | ||||
| Temporal Representation: | Three to four samples are collected per monitoring year. Samples were collected from October 2004 through March 2006. | ||||
| Environmental Conditions: | Toxicity testing is conducted on all storm event samples (at least three annually). | ||||
| QAPP Information: | Quality control conducted in compliance with the Riverside County's quality assurance plan. | ||||
| QAPP Information Reference(s): | Watershed Annual Progress Report 2004 to 2005 and 2005 to 2006 | ||||